Dear Editor,

The office of the auditor general was created by the constitution with specific provisions to safeguard its integrity and independence. These include the method of appointment and removal of the officeholder and the express provision that he or she “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority”.

The office of the auditor general is one of the pillars of good governance and a key institution for public accountability. It is itself subject to the rules of accountability and is accountable directly to Parliament for the discharge of its functions in accordance with the relevant laws and constitutional provisions.

The recent audit of the Auditor General’s Department conducted by the Ministry of Finance pursuant to section 122 (4) of the constitution revealed shortcomings for which the auditor general is obliged to provide explanations and a commitment to institute corrective actions.

However, the treatment of the auditor general by some members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is troubling. Members are not only entitled but also have a duty to question the auditor general on her audits and findings as well as the internal administration of her office. But it is completely out of order to demand that she divulge the name of a journalist with whom she might have spoken. It would be similarly out of order to require her to disclose the source of information that might have led her to conduct special investigations in relation to a particular government department or agency.

Nothing that has come to public knowledge suggests that the auditor general is guilty of misbehaviour, the remedy for which is clearly set out in section 121 of the constitution. I am, therefore, deeply disturbed by the “got you now” approach with which she is being treated.

Jamaica has been fortunate to have had a succession of distinguished auditors general, including Adrian Strachan, Rudolph Irvine and Harold Nosworthy. Having observed present officeholder Pamela Munroe-Ellis’s performance for over a decade, I am satisfied that she is of the same ilk. Placing her before a firing squad, for no apparently justifiable reason, may do far less damage to her reputation than it does to one of our most critical institutions.

Bruce Golding

brucegolding@gmail.com