THE GOVERNMENT IS BLUNDERING

June 21, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

I am quite sure that those individuals appointed to conduct forensic audits of state agencies and corporations are quite capable of doing an independent and professional job.  But that is not the point, is it?

In some cases, not all those appointed were in the forefront of criticizing the very agencies they now have to audit. Some had gone as far as accusing those agencies of engaging in unlawful practices. Others were instrumental in filing court action for the activities of some of the agencies to be audited.

To have these persons now audit the very agencies against which they have railed, represents a clear case of a conflict of interest and should not be tolerated. If these persons are allowed to conduct these forensic audits in situations where such conflicts of interest exist, it will cause a number of problems.

First of all, it will expose the government to a great deal of criticism. The government has already been accused of going on a political witch-hunt. If you appoint persons critical of an agency to audit that agency, you are adding rather than subtracting from those criticisms. If, on the other hand, persons with no interests in the audits were appointed, these criticisms would have become moot.

Secondly, the very fact that in some cases persons in a clear case of a conflict of interest have been appointed, it will affect the credibility of their findings. They will be accused of trying to justify their original criticisms of the agencies and having their findings so tailored.

Thirdly, if indeed they do find evidence of malfeasance which can lead to criminal prosecution, problems will emerge when and if the evidence has to be laid before the courts. Those accused of any malfeasance will point to the obvious conflicts of interest. This will affect any successful prosecution.
If the process of acquiring the evidence may be subject to bias, this discredits the evidence. The lawyers will have a field day and the prosecutors will have it difficult. This happened before. We need not look too far. It happened in Trinidad in a number of cases where the motives of the investigators were subject to interrogation.
It is clear that there is a shortage of audit resources in Guyana, but in some instances better choices could have been made. There are other firms and companies which could have been contracted to undertake certain audits without risking being accused of being in a conflict of interest.

The new government promised better. They promised better standards. They are capable of doing better and they should do better. What are needed are clean, transparent and unbiased audits of these agencies. This will enhance public confidence in what is being conducted and dispel notions that what is taking place is a witch-hunt.

I am unimpressed with the justifications that have been offered by the government so far for appointing certain persons to undertake these audits. These justifications avoid the central issue, which is the need to avoid possible conflicts of interest, and to ensure that the audits enjoy greater confidence.

The fact that the findings will be up for scrutiny has nothing to do with the central issue. The fact that persons will be allowed to respond to the findings is also irrelevant. If you are going to undertake an investigation it cannot be done by the very accusers.

It is as if in the Linden Commission of Inquiry the persons who had accused the authorities of murder were placed to adjudicate on the matter. These persons may well be able to undertake an unbiased report. But do you believe that their report will find wide credibility and acceptance?

Similarly, suppose persons connected the Working People’s Alliance were appointed to Rodney Commission of Inquiry, do you believe that the Commission would be viewed as unbiased? It clearly would not.

The government has to do better. The PPP was not interested in investigating certain things. The new government seems to be making a far bigger mistake in some of these forensic audits.  Is this the good governance that was promised?

Interesting indeed.