-says President should be asked

Auditor General Deodat Sharma yesterday declined to comment on his two-year extension in office despite questions over his continued tenure beyond the statutory retirement age. Instead, he told reporters they should question President Irfaan Ali about the matter. 

 Sharma was responding to questions from media operatives after he officially handed over the Auditor General’s Report for the fiscal year 2025 in the Parliament Chamber, Public Buildings, Brickdam, Georgetown.

Sharma repeatedly declined to comment on the issue, telling reporters, “No comment. You could ask the President,” despite several attempts to get an explanation from him.

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament (MP) Ganesh Mahipaul told reporters after the ceremony that the opposition does not support the extension of Sharma’s tenure, noting that its position is based on principle rather than Sharma as an individual. 

“The extension of the Auditor General is not something that we support. And that is not because of Deodat Sharma, the individual. It is a matter of principle,” Mahipaul said.

He observed that persons who have reached the statutory retirement age should make way for others within the institution to advance their careers. 

“We believe whenever someone has reached the age of retirement, they should go their merry way and allow others to elevate. So that everyone can have a fair cut of the pie to participate and hold offices,” he said.

According to Mahipaul, extending Sharma’s tenure prevents other senior officers within the Auditor General’s Office from being considered for the position and can affect staff morale.

“It is depriving other officers within that very Auditor General’s Office from aspiring to become Auditor General,” he said. “It is depriving other officers from having the morale, the upliftment in terms of their work ethics and so on.”

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC said recently that the Government is prepared to defend its decision to allow Sharma to remain in office. 

Nandlall acknowledged that legal action has been threatened over Sharma’s continued occupation of the office, but said the Government remains confident that its position is legally sound. “I understand that they have written and have threatened legal action. Whatever actions are filed will be defended,” Nandlall had told Kiskadee Watch. 

He said that the Government would not have taken the decision to allow Sharma to remain in office if it was not satisfied that the decision was legally defensible. 

“The government would not have made such a decision if it did not believe in the legal correctness of it,” he stated. 

Former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran, through attorney Christopher Ram, has formally challenged Sharma’s continued tenure. Ram has asked the Attorney General to explain the constitutional and legal basis for Sharma remaining in office and whether any extension, reappointment or other authorisation was granted. He has indicated that judicial review proceedings could be filed if the Government does not provide a satisfactory explanation.

Public Accounts Committee Chairman Vishnu Panday has also questioned Sharma’s continued tenure, saying there appears to be no provision allowing him to remain beyond the prescribed retirement age. Panday also raised concerns about the additional cost to taxpayers and questioned what happened to the succession plan for the Auditor General’s Office.

If the matter reaches court, Goolsarran could seek declarations that Sharma vacated the office upon reaching 68, that the position is vacant, and an injunction preventing Sharma from continuing to act as Auditor General. He could alternatively seek to have any purported extension of Sharma’s tenure quashed.