Failure to appoint new Auditor General

In my letter published on August 4, I pointed out the fact that the Constitution made no provision for the extension of the Auditor General's term of office. This matter has now been raised in last week's sitting of the PAC.

During that sitting, it was maintained that Joseph Galea could be allowed to continue to perform the duties of Auditor General. The legal advice quoted in the report supported this view on the grounds that the Auditor General had not been given a third term but was only asked to stay in office for some more time as in the case of the caretaker position occupied by the Prime Minister at election time until a new Prime Minister is elected. But it is very doubtful whether one should draw such an analogy because the caretaker position of the Prime Minister at election time is duly sanctioned by Section 77 of the Constitution. No such provision exists in the Constitution with regard to the Auditor General. The remedy that the Constitution provides for is that "the Deputy Auditor General shall, whenever the office of Auditor General is temporarily vacant..., perform the functions of Auditor General" (Section 188 (9) (a). Yet, in actual fact, the post of Deputy Auditor General has been left vacant for the last six years.

All being said, the fact remains that the requirements of Section 108 of the Constitution have so far remained unfulfilled. The appointment of an Auditor General and Deputy Auditor General is now a matter of urgency failing which the National Audit Office would not be able to perform its proper functions. Besides, this would indicate a cavalier attitude, not to say outright disregard, for the provisions of the Constitution which the elected representatives have sworn to uphold : (Article 124 (1)... So help us God.