Dear Editor,
I’ve been closely following the exchanges in the media between the Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo and former Auditor General and anti-corruption advocate, Mr. Anand Goolsaran.
Mr. Goolsaran wants to sue the Vice President for reputational damages he claimed he suffered, where the Vice President questioned his professional integrity.
First, let me say that as a finance professional myself, I support Mr. Goolsaran’s right to defend and protect his professional integrity if he strongly believes that it is under unjust and unfair attack.
However, at the same time, Mr. Goolsaran must be aware that in the fraternity to which he belongs, accounting/audit/finance professionals are subject to the highest level of ethical conduct. Equally, those who choose to “dabble” in politics, served/serve in public office, and who are/were the recipients of public contracts, are also subject to the highest degree of public scrutiny. Therefore, they must subject themselves to such scrutiny; this includes criticisms, being held accountable by the public and other stakeholders, and thus answerable to the public.
That said, I wish to draw to the public’s attention that Mr. Anand Goolsaran together with his colleague, Mr. Christopher Ram were contracted by the APNU/AFC Government in 2015 to conduct forensic audits of a number of public agencies. Based on my own review, the circumstances and procedures surrounding that audit involving Mr. Goolsaran at the time were very questionable to the extent that Mr. Goolsaran’s and Mr. Ram’s professional conduct and integrity come into question.
According to the former Finance Minister, Mr. Winston Jordan’s report to the National Assembly, in response to questions posed by the Opposition at the time, he reported that the “forensic audits” cost the national treasury over $133 million and counting at the time that report was made. In terms of the procurement procedure, the former minister reported that the procurement procedure followed in the award of the contracts was in keeping with section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act, and that the audit was carried out in accordance with the Audit Act of 2004.
Notably, section 28 (b) of the Procurement Act 2003 states that: “the procuring entity may engage in single-source procurement when –
b) The services, because of their highly complex or specialized nature, are available from only one source.
As far as I am aware, neither Mr. Goolsaran nor Mr. Christopher Ram are specialized forensic auditors. I am unaware of their experience in that regard as well as their qualifications. For the readers benefit, forensic audit is a highly specialized field in auditing, and there are specialized training and professional certifications in forensic audit. Moreover, forensic audits are very different from financial audits. And for there to be a forensic audit, it has to be triggered by an event, for example, such as fraud or embezzlement. In this case, an event that may trigger the need for a forensic audit would have to originate from the normal audit executed by the Auditor General, to which the findings of the audit supports the need for a deeper forensic audit.
This brings me now to the Audit Act of 2004 which was cited as the authority to carry out the forensic audit. The Audit Act of 2004 does not explicitly provide for “forensic audits”. Notwithstanding, Part IV of the Audit Act, section 18 provides that “the Auditor General may engage the services of technical experts and Chartered Accountants in public practice to serve on a contract basis for limited audit engagements including those required as part of agreements with international organizations”. Sections 19-22 set out the guidelines for such contracting, limit of tenure, limit on scope of work, and the authority.
With that in mind, my interpretation of the aforesaid provisions in the Audit Act as it relates to the forensic audit involving Mr. Goolsaran and Mr. Ram in 2015, is that only the Auditor General has the authority to engage external experts to carry out such an audit, provided that it was triggered by a legitimate event. Although the Executive branch of government may have the authority to order a forensic audit, it cannot be done without it being triggered by an event–that is, pursuant to the Auditor General’s reports. Otherwise, it is just a political facade, which it turned out to be in hindsight.
It is worth noting that when the award was made to Mr. Ram and Mr. Goolsaran, both of them were heavily criticized by other accountants as reported in the media. These criticisms were in relation to their expertise and experience as well as conflicts of interest given that both of them were staunch critics of the former government at that time, that is now the incumbent government. Furthermore, it was alleged by a WPA Executive member that Christopher Ram was (maybe still is) a financier of the WPA/APNU at that time, and that he was approached to place his name as the WPA’s choice of Prime Ministerial candidate for the APNU. Also, it is alleged that Mr. Goolsaran’s work was cited in the APNU’s 2015 elections campaign materials, and as far as I am aware, he remains an advisor to the AFC currently. So, from these standpoints, their involvement in such an audit was highly questionable given the multifaceted dimensions of “conflicts of interests”.
In closing, if Mr. Goolsaran has any credibility, I believe he owe it to the general public to provide answers to the hereunder mentioned questions, which may or may not vindicate him.
i. What were the findings of the forensic audits he conducted? As far as I am aware, the forensic audits did not uncover any evidence of fraud or embezzlement, which goes back to my earlier point that a forensic audit has to be triggered by an event,and in this case, ought to have been pursuant to the findings of the Auditor General’s report.
ii. What are his credentialsspecifically in forensic audits?This is important to properly justify the method of procurement, which was sole-sourcing, pursuant to the Procurement Act.
iii. Can he disclose the contract sum awarded to him?
iv. Which agency was the contracting agency? Was it the Ministry of Finance or the Auditor General? If it was the Ministry of Finance, then that contract was entered into in violation of the Audit Act, because only the Auditor General and no other agency or Ministry has the authority to contract external technical experts/firms for any such audit, in accordance with the Audit Act of 2004.
Editor, clearly, in relation to the forensic audit involving Mr. Goolsaran, there are a number of issues surrounding ethical considerationsthat he ought to have been truthful to himself and the public, to the extent where (1) he ought not to have involved himself in the audit if he was conflicted in way if he’s affiliated with the political parties at the time, (2) he ought not to have involved himself if he did not possess the requisite specialized training and experience, and (3), he ought not to have involved himself if the Procurement and Audit Acts were violated in that process.
Yours respectfully,
Joel Bhagwandin
