After serving some 21 years in that office, Auditor General Deodat Sharma is now seeking another two years on the job, a request that has attracted strong concerns and rejection. However, the rejection is coming from people who have very little say in the matter. Stabroek News reported that the AG wrote President Irfaan Ali seeking the extension to his tenure. He is expected to retire next month because he has reached the age limit, 68. But Sharma is not ready to let go.
While there has been no word on the President’s response, chartered accountants Christopher Ram and Anand Goolsarran have already registered their disapproval.
In his column Accountability Watch, former Auditor General, Goolsarran recalled that Sharma was appointed to act in 2005 and remained acting until October 2012 when he received confirmation. “To date, Sharma served 21 years as Auditor General at a time when many countries are placing term limits for their heads of National Audit Offices in order to enhance and preserve their independence from the executive,” Goolsarran penned.
Further, Goolsarran asserted that Sharma is “not a professionally qualified accountant, having obtained just a bachelor’s degree from the University of Guyana.” Goolsarran noted a series of qualifications that were included in the draft Audit Act but were removed from the final piece of legislation before it was passed in the National Assembly.
Goolsarran pointed to Section 8 of the Audit Act which equates the position of AG with that of the Chief Justice in terms of salaries, superannuation benefits and other conditions of service. In Goolsarran’s estimation, this implies that the appointment and retirement procedures of the AG must be consistent with those of the Chief Justice.
The former AG then recalled Article 127 (1) of the Constitution which provides for the appointment of Chief Justice by the President after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, he posited, the substantive appointment of Sharma as AG in 2012 did not comply with the Constitution since the Leader of the Opposition had no involvement in the process.
Even further, Goolsarran said, there is no provision for an extension of service since judges, including the Chancellor and Chief Justice are required to demit office by age 68 as provided for by article 197(2A). Goolsarran said that Ali should therefore deny Sharma’s request, as there is no constitutional support for him to do otherwise.
Ram’s registered concerns had more to do with Sharma’s perceived lack of independence. He said, “the framework is structurally incapable of producing independence,” adding that “wherever autonomy exists must come entirely from the personal courage, professional standing and institutional assertiveness of the individual appointed.” He said that when those qualities are absent, or discouraged- “the office becomes an extension of executive convenience rather than a check upon it.”
Ram also put Sharma’s qualification under the microscope and recalled that his confirmation came under “accidental circumstances” due to the absence of the Alliance for Change (AFC) party’s Trevor Williams from a Public Accounts Committee meeting. Williams’ convenient absence allowed the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) to have its way in the appointment of Sharma. Ram noted that Sharma is not a professionally qualified accountant.
Further, Ram pointed out, “during a period marked by explosive growth in public expenditure, the proliferation of discretionary funds and persistently weak financial systems, the Auditor General has shown zero appetite to challenge, interrogate or even issue timely and meaningful warnings.” Ram noted the possibility that Sharma’s extension will be approved by default, due to a lack of planning for a successor to his office.
