The Auditor-General, Heather Thomas, has a constitutional role in providing a fair and accurate portrayal of public accounts with no hint of partiality. Today, as has been the case with all auditors-general — two of whom are now deceased — we have a new chief but the role remains the same. I can recall Larry Dennis being censured for being highly critical of the United Bermuda Party, so there is nothing new here.

What is new is the Auditor-General has indicated in her report items she references as having contravened the law. There was one hell of a fuss during the premiership of Paula Cox in the wake of the controversial leadership of Ewart Brown to put protocols in place for the procurement of government contracts.

It took more than a year to develop the office after the legislation was passed, but since its development the Office of Project Management and Procurement by all appearances is a paper tiger whose processes are avoided for the most part. The Auditor-General, however, has said in her report that in some cases there was no attempt to engage the procurement office at all, as every protocol was abandoned and contracts were given simply by “word of mouth”. Even more sinister, according to her investigations, issues of conflict of interest which is a critical rule of law, were not properly disclosed by the Premier.

Interestingly, David Burt did not deny the allegations but rather said there is a rational explanation and that the Auditor-General should have contacted him first before publishing what he said were factual errors that could be explained rationally because as he said (paraphrased) there was an emergency and time did not permit them to go through the timely protocol of procurement. Notwithstanding that explanation, the report says not even the retroactive measures put in place to remedy issues of expediency were followed.

That rationale of absolute disregard for protocol became the modus operandi for the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Tens of millions of dollars are spent and possibly wasted on hastily written contracts and deals with potential conflicts of interest and no public accountability. The big question is, on what basis is it lawful for a Member of Parliament to override the Constitution and pierce the veil between political representation and the role of the Civil Service?

If an MP — be it Premier or Cabinet minister — can make a decision to override the role of the civil servants responsible for the execution of government functions, then there is no use for bodies such as the Office of Project Management and Procurement. Why waste the taxpayer’s money on salaries and offices that have no function? Truthfully, Auditor-General’s words are a possible euphemism for what otherwise should be described simply as criminal behaviour.

Is such abuse an indictable offence when the public purse has been raided through unlawful activity? Again, Ms Cox as Premier began an anti-corruption law that was amended by Trevor Moniz during his term as a Cabinet minister for the One Bermuda Alliance. That Act specifically laid out terms that should give every MP pause for having an influential role in the procurement of any government contract. If that Act is not observed or respected as law, then we may just as well sack the office and function of the Auditor-General and do as Lieutenant-Colonel David Burch suggested — let each department write its own audit.

The auditor’s report did not just implicate the Premier, it also incriminates the Minister of Health, Kim Wilson, and the entire Cabinet, who ought to have had knowledge or at least be suspicious of unlawful activity and thus distance themselves from any execution of those contracts.

If indeed what the Auditor-General implied is a crime, what bearing does the Act on proceeds of crime mean in these types of cases? Isn’t it a waste of taxpayer funds to have departments that do not exercise their roles and functions? We may just save ourselves some money if we dispensed with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General if it’s a free-for-all and the political arm can do whatever it deems expedient, legitimised by an act of God and proclaimed state of emergency. Added to that, how can the public feel assured that existing contracts and government dealings are being handled properly?

Had been another jurisdiction, such as Canada for example, the matter would be a hot topic of debate and there would be public disclosure through live television inquiries. People are serious there and political parties are vigilant. Yes, even in Canada some things slip through the net because of high levels of systemic corruption, but never so blatant that ministers or the leader of government are directly involved.

It is probably the difference between large, highly evolved political bureaucracies and small-island politics. Unfortunately, the UBP set a trend that the Progressive Labour Party now has mastered to perfection. The game is to do it until it hurts, knowing the pain will soon be forgotten and the distraction of the present day will carry.

In this particular case, the proper resolution should be that the Premier and Minister of Finance, along with the Minister of Health, should step down from having any role or responsibility in government until this issue of credibility is solved.