"The announcement of the Council of Ministers does not mention any case of actions of the Auditor General that either deviate from his constitutional responsibilities or constitute interference in the role and work of other independent officials or constitute his involvement in the role of executive power," the Audit Office said. Democracy, adding that it will be able to comment "with evidence, if even an example of such action is given".
According to the Audit Office, “it is surprising that, while the Minister would send additional information to the Attorney General today to rule on our alleged interference in the work of the executive, the Council of Ministers hastened to prejudge him. Attorney General ", adds in today's announcement the Audit Service of the Republic.
He considers the report of the Council of Ministers on "public behavior on the part of the Auditor General that undermines the seriousness and credibility of the institution" to be particularly serious.
It would be a pity, he continues, "if the Council of Ministers was looking for an Auditor General, who will either hide the problems he finds because they concern Government Ministers, or will leave unanswered reports of Ministers who reach the level of dragonfly and tend to personally insult the Auditor General , such as reports of immorality on the part of the Auditor General or reports of superstars, emperors, boobs, cannibals, etc. We recall in this connection the recent urgings of the President of the Republic, exactly one week ago, to the Auditor General, to continue with the same zeal and to be unwavering, applauding our course of action and giving us support to continue ".
It also states that "according to the Constitution, the Council of Ministers exercises executive power and the Audit Office never intervened or wanted to intervene or attempted to intervene in the executive power", adding that "this is incomprehensible, since the Audit Office in no case enters in enforcement proceedings, other than the expression of opinions or recommendations ”.
The Audit Office states that "it will await the opinion requested by the Minister of Interior of the Attorney General, which will be fully respected, as it always does".
Stating that it "never claimed to be infallible", the Audit Office adds that it is the same one that, in an effort to continuously improve its procedures, proceeds with a process of self-assessment (something that never happened again) and has already reached an agreement with the Audit Office. Service of the United Kingdom, one of the most respected similar Services, so that in October 2016 a peer review of our Service will be carried out, when the recommendations of the self-evaluation process have already been implemented ”.
Regarding the three cases concerning the Minister of Interior that have been in the news lately, the Audit Office states that “in the case of the Kosia Unit, the intervention of the Audit Office took the form of sending a letter to the Parliamentary Audit Committee on September 8, 2015. to inform them that the agreement of the Minister of Interior with the contractor may have been illegal and that, while the Minister had been informed since 23 July 2015, with a suggestion to seek an opinion from the Attorney General, he disregarded his obligation to act lawfully. In the end, both the Attorney General and the State Aid Supervisor made it clear that the Minister's agreement was illegal. "
The Service wonders whether "in other words, it should not have even submitted its views on this issue" and whether "we want such an Audit Office, which will conceal illegal actions of Ministers".
In the case of the Bangladeshi students, the Audit Office relies on correspondence received by the Office, according to which “the Minister ignored all other Services involved indicating that documents submitted by students were forged and allegedly decided "to recognize the benefits of doubt in the candidates" and to allow them to enter ".
"We sent", he continues, the matter to the Attorney General, when and then the Minister had claimed that this allegedly went beyond our responsibilities and powers, and the answer was given on October 12, 2015 by the Attorney General himself who had stated that:
Regarding the issue that was raised and concerns the powers and responsibilities of the Auditor General of the Republic, the Attorney General indicates that they are explicitly listed in Article 116 of the Constitution and do not need another interpretation. It is understood that if during the exercise of the powers and responsibilities of the Auditor General or in any other way the possibility of committing a criminal offense in any person comes to his notice, he has the right, but also the duty as, after collecting the relevant information, documents or other information, refer the matter to the Attorney General, who will judge whether or not there is a question of possible criminal offenses and will give instructions to the Police so that it can investigate the matter. "
The Audit Office also cites the Attorney General's report that "it was the Auditor General's duty, and not just a right, to act in the way he did" and adds that as a result of its own intervention, "procedures have now changed".
Regarding the third case concerning the Kofinou slaughterhouse, the Audit Office states that "it found that the Minister of Interior launched the tender announcement for the ten-year lease of his slaughterhouse, theoretically under liquidation".
"We sent a letter to the Minister of Interior dated 18.11.2015 with our reservations about the legality of the procedure and we suggested that he seek guidance from the Attorney General", the Service states, which is questioned in its announcement whether this constitutes involvement in the role of the executive power ”.
"If so, why did the Minister of Interior remember it today, after a month, and not then" and "why did he raise such an issue of our competence only after the meeting on 3.12.2015 under the State Aid Control Commission when the rationale of our questions? ”the Service also asks.
"Besides, the Minister requested an opinion on this issue from the Attorney General and only today he sent, he said, evidence to substantiate his allegations. Why was not given time to give the opinion? ”, Concludes the Audit Service.
Source: KYPE