Despite the Attorney General’s opposite views, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee James Klutse Avedzi has defended the Auditor General for disclosing the special audit on the government’s Covid-19 expenditure. The Attorney General maintained that the Auditor General violated the constitution by making the paper public before it was examined by the Public Accounts Committee,the Attorney General, Godfred Dame, stated in a letter to the Auditor-General, Mr Johnson Akuamoah-Asiedu, that Article 187(5) of the Constitution requires the Auditor-General to submit his report to Parliament and draw attention to any inconsistencies in the audited accounts.
He went on to say that Article 187(6) of the Constitution compels Parliament to discuss the Auditor-report General’s and, if required and in the public interest, create a committee to deal with any issues that arise from it.
According to the Attorney General, the report of the Auditor-General may be considered final and relevant action may be taken only after satisfying the constitutional requirement of submitting the Auditor-report General’s to Parliament, the subsequent debate by Parliament on it, and the conclusion of work by the appropriate committee of Parliament.
However, in an interview with Eyewitness News on 97.3 Citi FM, Mr. Avedzi stated that the Auditor General did not violate the law, as claimed by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice.The Ketu North MP said Article 187(5) mandates the Auditor General to submit to Parliament, governement’s audited reports not less than six months after the end of the year which the “Auditor has done and satisfied that provision of the constitution.
He emphasized that the Auditor General was only carrying out his constitutional mandate by publishing the report, and he urged the Attorney General to amend Section 23 of the Audit Service Act to ensure that the publication occurs after the report has been debated by the Public Accounts Committee, but until then, the Auditor General is only carrying out his constitutional mandate.
“He [the Auditor General] just went in compliance with the law. The constitution said he should submit the report to Parliament, and he did that. The constitution also said he should publish the report, and he has done that.
“What he should look out for is the lacuna. Section 23 of the Audit Service Act should be amended so that after the Auditor General has submitted the report to Parliament, he should wait until the Public Accounts Committee debates the report before it can be published, but as it stands now, the Auditor General can publish without waiting for a debate on the report by PAC.”
James Klutse Avedz
