Terms of office and Auditor-General

It has transpired that the Auditor-General's second term of office expired on July 28. Section 108 (3) (a) of the Constitution clearly lays down that the Auditor-General is appointed for a term of five years and may be eligible for reappointment for one other five-year term. Once these two terms of office expire, there is no provision that allows the incumbent to remain in office until the appointment of a new Auditor-General.

Thus, once the two consecutive terms of appointment have expired, the only logical conclusion is that the Auditor-General is no longer in office. In a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives on September 4, the Auditor-General expressed his reluctance to attend the meeting in view of the expiry of his term of office and clearly stated that he no longer considered himself the incumbent Auditor-General.

Such reluctance is not good enough: once the term of office has expired, the Auditor-General has no authority to exercise his functions any more and he should be substituted in his role by the Deputy Auditor-General.

The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was reported to have stated that, as there was agreement between the two parties to extend the term of office of the Accountant-General, the post of Auditor-General could not be considered to be vacant, even though his term of office had expired.

With all due respect, such an agreement can only have any meaningful effect if it is translated in an act of Parliament which receives the President's assent. Once this is not the case, no such agreement can go against the clear provisions of the Constitution. Only if the Constitution is amended to allow the incumbent to remain in office until a replacement is appointed that such an agreement can be implemented.

Finally, it is highly regrettable that the Speaker of the House chose not to comment on this issue, branding it as an "internal matter".

The term of office of a parliamentary official appointed in terms of the Constitution can hardly be termed an "internal matter". When one considers that an auditor of a private company is a public matter and his removal and appointment have to be notified to the Registrar of Companies, it would be absurd to consider the appointment of the State's Auditor-General as prescribed by the Constitution an internal matter.

As things stand, the Constitution is being breached as there is no Auditor-General in office. The earlier this breach is remedied, the better. Section 108 should also be amended to allow the incumbent to remain in office until a substitute is appointed. Thus, nobody would have any interest in delaying the appointment of such an important official. The state has already been without an Auditor-General for two months and this is hardly indicative of a well-functioning parliamentary democracy.