Gordon Robinson | If I’ve told you once ...

Current affairs commentators are tying themselves into knots dissecting sections 29 and 30 of Financial Administration and Audit Act (FAAA).

Why? Depending on which political viscera consumes them, they’ve irresistible urges to prove Auditor General (AudGen) wrong in submitting certain reports to Parliament or Speaker wrong to refuse tabling. None seem interested in process. Everybody wants to win.

It reminds me of a true story I’m sure I’ve told before but, as a Grumpy Old Man, I reserve the right to repeat. And before Old BC rolls her eyes and sarcastically says “surprise!” I add “as many times as I like.”

So THERE!

At Campion in the late 19(mumble mumble)s one not-so-bright teacher stood out like a sore thumb. Students teased him mercilessly including inflicting the nickname “Ratty” (apologies to the late, great Rory Marsh but we were first) because of his misplaced attempted goatee. Ratty taught Geography using the Lazy-man method. Students read textbooks out loud.

One student reading about countries’ exports came upon “salmon”. After the boy uttered that word Ratty stopped him. “No, boy, that word is Sallmon. Now read it again.” Poor chap, accustomed to pronouncing salmon properly, did it again. Ratty lost his cool. “BOY, if I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times, that word is SALLMON . Sammon is, when you want to call somebody, you sammon dem!”

As proof I’ve lived too long, I find myself following Ratty’s example. If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times no Speaker has authority to investigate submissions of AudGen’s reports to find out whether AudGen, another Constitutional Officer, followed procedure!

I told you (November 19; Senseless scuffle and tug-o-war): “if AudGen sends a report (ANY report) to Parliament the Speaker isn’t allowed to look behind the delivery but is mandated by the Constitution to ‘cause them to be laid before the House of Representatives’.”

This was based on the Constitution (not FAAA) that gives AudGen complete autonomy. The Constitution mandates AudGen to audit ALL Government offices. It only allows ordinary legislation to add “other functions”. Legislation can’t restrict AudGen’s constitutional mandate or give Speaker unconstitutional powers.

Two days ago ( No Conflict; just poor performance) I told you again:

“For example there’s the dangerous arrogating of authority to look behind AudGen Report submissions to unilaterally ascertain their bona fides and deny tabling based on [Speaker’s] understanding of the FAAA . BUT this isn’t a legislative issue. It’s a Constitutional law issue.”

Lookie here. Stop counting every tree in sight; step back; survey the forest. AudGen submits reports to Parliament. Either they are lawful or unlawful. What should Speaker do? Investigate reports’ lawfulness? How? “Rule” on whether they should be tabled? On what authority?

Tell dem a’ready wi haffi tell dem again;

Dem a murderer!

Yes, Barrington Levy, I know! The most ludicrous examples of public political contortionists’ murder of thought process come from some lawyers cum public affairs commentators. One loud, leading luminary examined the two sections ad nauseam before pronouncing AudGen should include in her covering letter to Speaker assertions of actions establishing she followed the law.

This MUST be the Guy Lombardo Show! All that’s left is for the Royal Canadians to play Send in the Clowns.

That would mean that, somehow, AudGen is obliged to prove to Speaker that, before submission, she followed the law. This is no different from saying Speaker can investigate and rule.

We all attended “Jamaica’s best secondary school”. At mine, Latin was a compulsory course. That made it easy for me to grasp and retain certain fundamental legal principles like Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta, essentially a presumption of legality.

Speakers should be taught that legal presumption in orientation. It means that, in the absence of contrary EVIDENCE,

(a) something which should’ve been done was in fact done; or

(b) something which has been done was done in accordance with all relevant technicalities.

Examples of this principle abound including the 2010 Judgment of Bertram Morrison J. in Clement Dodd Jnr v Norma Jean and Carol Dodd (a famous family ded-lef tug-o-war) where Letters of Administration (a Public Official’s document) were alleged to be irregularly issued. In identifying issues, Morrison J. wrote (page 11) “What is the application of the presumption of the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta (the presumption of regularity) in the grant of letters of Administration? Has the presumption of regularity been rebutted?”

AudGen needn’t prove legality to Speaker. Speaker shouldn’t look behind AudGen’s submission for proof of illegality. Speaker must presume legality. Somewhere else, somebody else can try to rebut the presumption of legality if he/she can present EVIDENCE there.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com