WHY is Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s conduct not also being investigated over a $2.5 billion understatement in this country’s 2023 public financial records?

This was one of the questions asked by Lady Simler, a member of a five-judge panel of the Privy Council, in London yesterday, as British law lords unanimously dismissed an appeal by Imbert and the Cabinet against Auditor-General Jaiwantie Ramdass. , related to euphemism.

During the hearing, Lady Simler questioned senior counsel Douglas Mendes about why Ramdass was being investigated but not Imbert, suggesting the investigation was one-sided.

Lady Simler said that to keep the investigation “impartial”, Imbert’s conduct should also be investigated.

He did so while Mendes, lead lawyer for Imbert and the Cabinet, made his presentations. Mendes did not give a direct answer to the question, but as the process progressed, on a few more occasions, Lady Simler said she found it difficult to understand the logic behind why Imbert’s conduct was not part of the investigation.

She, along with Lords Hodge, Sales, Stephens and Lady Rose, were hearing the appeal brought by Imbert and the Cabinet against the local Court of Appeal which granted Ramdass permission to bring a judicial review appeal against the creation of an inquiry team. to investigate the circumstances of the underestimation.

After about two hours of presentations from Mendes, the law lords briefly adjourned the hearing.

When they returned a few minutes later, Lord Hodge announced the decision.

Lead attorney Anand Ramlogan, who is leading a team of lawyers on behalf of Ramdass, was not required to make any submissions in response to Mendes’ submissions.

Lord Hodge stated that, in the board’s view, the local Court of Appeal did the right thing in granting Ramdass permission to bring his claim.

He said given the importance of the matter to Trinidad and Tobago, the board found it necessary to issue its ruling immediately and would provide written reasons at a later date.

Given the ruling, there is now nothing standing in the way of Ramdass filing his claim.

Ramdass alleges bias

The investigation team led by retired High Court judge David Harris was appointed by the Cabinet based on Imbert’s advice.

Imbert and the Cabinet were seeking to have Britain’s law lords declare that the Court of Appeal had erred when a three-judge panel comprising Justices Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and James Aboud granted Ramdass permission in June to present his claim for judicial review. .

On the same day as the Court of Appeal ruling, Imbert announced in a press release that he had ordered state lawyers led by Mendes to appeal the matter to the Privy Council.

Local judges ruled that Superior Court Judge Westmin James erred in law when he refused in the first instance to grant Ramdass permission to bring the lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal had also ordered that the matter be remanded for hearing before another judge of the High Court.

Ramdass, through his legal team, argued that Imbert’s recommendation to Cabinet to launch the investigation, select the investigation team, establish its terms of reference and have it report directly to him, was biased against him.

He also complained that Imbert and the Cabinet ordered Harris’ team to make findings about their conduct and that Imbert was responsible for the team’s remuneration.

Joining Ramlogan for Ramdass were lawyers Ganesh Saroop, Kent Samlal, Natasha Bisram and Aasha Ramlal, while Simon de la Bastide, SC, Jo-Anne Julien and Sonnel David-Longe appeared alongside Mendes for Imbert and the Cabinet.

Background

The impasse over the understatement of $2.5 billion began in April this year, after the Ministry of Finance attempted to hand over amended public accounts to the Auditor General to explain and rectify it.

Initially, the Government’s revenues were underestimated by the amount of 3.4 billion dollars, but later the ministry reduced this figure to 2.5 billion dollars.

Because the legal deadline to provide financial records was Jan. 31, Ramdass had refused to accept the amended public accounts when the ministry attempted to deliver them to his office in April. They delivered the first set of accounts for 2023 ahead of the deadline, which was audited, but not yet delivered at the time the ministry attempted to deliver the second set, which was supposedly backdated.

Although Ramdass initially refused to accept the updated accounts, his office eventually did so after receiving a pre-action protocol letter. In her legal complaint, Ramdass maintains that she felt intimidated into accepting the altered accounts.

While the second set of accounts was being audited, Ramdass claimed that his audit team was unable to reconcile the increase in revenue reported by the ministry.

On May 7, Imbert announced the appointment of an investigative team to investigate the underestimation.

About a week later, Ramdass’ lawyers approached the High Court seeking permission to file a judicial review against the decision to launch the investigation against him. They argued before Judge James that neither Imbert nor the Cabinet had powers to investigate the Office of the Auditor General.

However, the following month, the judge rejected the application, stating that Ramdass’s claim would have little chance of success if it were allowed to proceed.

The judge then stated that the Auditor General had failed to convince the court that Imbert was being biased in his favor in appointing the investigation team.

The judge further stated that Article 116(6) of the Constitution, which protects the Auditor General from being under the direction and control of any other power or authority, could not apply to investigations such as the one ordered by the Cabinet.