‘STEP TOWARDS TYRANNY’

A key technical support whereby auditors general have sat on the Integrity Commission for more than five decades might soon be brought to a halt as, yesterday, government lawmakers made the decision to remove the current auditor general, Pamela Monroe Ellis, as a commissioner of the anti-corruption body.

Two opposition lawmakers signalled that they were opposed to the decision.

The vote was taken during a meeting of the joint select committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act (ICA).

The move by a parliamentary committee reviewing the Integrity Commission Act has caused shock waves among some civil society groups, who have expressed concerns about the controversial decision.

The Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) said it was deeply concerned about the reasons presented by the committee for the proposed removal of the auditor general from the Integrity Commission (IC).

Jeanette Calder, executive director of JAMP, said these claims appear unsupported by evidence or legal grounding.

At the same time, Danielle Archer, principal director of National Integrity Action (NIA), warned that the move by government lawmakers to have the auditor general booted from the IC appears to be a “troubling step towards tyranny”.

Archer argued that, for more than 50 years, the auditor general has been an ex officio member of the commission established under the Parliamentary Integrity of Members Act (1973), ensuring oversight of statutory declarations of members of parliament and safeguarding accountability.

“So, why now? The auditor general cannot audit herself. Making the claim that she cannot perform her core functions is a lazy and disingenuous justification for her removal. This reckless decision undermines institutional integrity and signals a dangerous disregard for democratic principles,” she charged.

Calder said the argument that the size of the commission’s budget necessitates oversight by the auditor general ignores precedent, noting that other public bodies with even larger budgets are lawfully audited by private firms.

“Likewise, the claim that Parliament is disadvantaged by the lack of performance audits done by the private firm, fails to acknowledge the private firms are able to conduct those audits, and that the finance minister has authority to include such requirements in contracts with non-government auditors,” Calder contended.

She also pointed out that concerns about potential conflict were anticipated and addressed in the drafting of the ICA, which allows for the engagement of independent, private audit firms – therefore insulating the auditor general from such a scenario.

“Such policy decisions must be grounded in facts and the rule of law and, in the absence of such, JAMP is deeply concerned that the committee decided to accept such a recommendation. It begs the question, why?”

Julian Robinson, a member of the committee, made it clear that the auditor general should remain a member of the IC.

“My understanding is that, where audits are done of the Integrity Commission, they are done not by the Auditor General’s Department, but by an independent accounting firm, which removes that issue of a conflict of interest,” he said.

In his remarks, Dr Morais Guy, an opposition MP, said he did not have a difficulty with the auditor general being a member of the IC.

Controversial government backbencher Everald Warmington, in a recommendation to the joint select committee, indicated that he wants the auditor general excised from the ranks of commissioners at the IC.

He charged that her membership on the IC is a breach of the Constitution of Jamaica.

“Sections 120, 121 and 122 of the Constitution make it clear her responsibility, and [she] can’t be a part of any other board or body; so, in effect, this is a breach of the Constitution,” he declared.

However, Warmington’s argument about a breach of the Constitution was not supported by the solicitor general, who provided legal guidance to the committee.

Government MP and attorney-at-law Tova Hamilton said she supported the recommendation for the auditor general to be removed.

“The reason I believe that a third party is used currently for audits is because the auditor general is a part of the commission,” Hamilton said.

She said the audits that are currently done are not similar to those done by the auditor general.

With the IC being allocated some $2 billion each financial year, Delroy Chuck, government lawmaker and minister of justice, said the anti-corruption body “requires the full force of the Auditor General’s Department to investigate” the commission.

He said it must be clear how the funds provided to the IC are being used.

Sherine Golding Campbell also expressed similar sentiments to those of Hamilton for the removal of the auditor general from the IC.

She argued that “…were (the auditor general) to be the reviewer, the examiner, the check and the balance of that body as well, we may very well not be seeing some of the things in the public domain that have caused many of us concerns in the past”.

However, Calder said the characterisation of the auditor general as currently serving as a “reviewer, examiner, and check and balance” of the Integrity Commission misrepresents the actual statutory framework and the auditor general’s role within it.

“Equally incorrect is the assertion that the auditor general is constitutionally barred from serving as a commissioner. Section 120 of the Constitution presents no such prohibition, and we welcomed the solicitor general’s timely correction of this misstatement,” Calder said.

Rudolph Irvine, a former auditor general whose tenure spanned 1966 to 1978, was the first chairman of the Integrity Commission as it existed then.

His successor, Adrian Strachan, who was auditor general for 29 years and demitted office in 2008, was also a member of the Integrity Commission over the period.

Auditors general sat on the Integrity Commission and the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com