Principal Auditor Report 2018/19 Should Now Emerge

Principal Auditor Report 2018/19 Should Now Emerge

Yesterday the Principal Auditor confirmed that the Report for 2018-19 was dated 31 May 2025 and had been delivered to Parliament on 13 June 2025. Steps should be taken so it is tabled and published immediately.

31 May 2025 was the last day in office of the previous Principal Auditor as Principal Auditor and as such the Report was completed during his tenure. It had however been reported in public on 25 April 2025 that he would be going on pre-retirement leave on 1 June 2025 and that he “…officially retires in August 2025.” If that is correct he must still remain a public officer till retirement.

This morning the Speaker also confirmed that the Report had been delivered to Parliament on 13 June 2025 but she did not consider the Report had been properly delivered because the Principal Auditor was not in place at the time. It seems to us that the relevant date is whether he was in post as Principal Auditor when it was completed – 31 May 2025
– which he plainly was. This has been confirmed by the present Principal Auditor. Additionally, if it is right that the former Principal Auditor remains a public officer till August 2025 presumably he had the authority of the present Principal Auditor when he made delivery. All that is relevant.

In reaching the view contained in her reply to the Leader of the Opposition the Speaker read her reply fully in Parliament. That has given the public the content of the reply but not of the emails from the Leader of the Opposition.

To avoid the public forming misunderstandings of what has been raised or said by the Opposition the GSD is now publishing the Leader of the Opposition’s communications on this issue.

Mr Azopardi said: “While it was not my intention to publish my emails to the Speaker the fact that she has read her reply to me in Parliament now makes it necessary for me to publish the emails I wrote to the Speaker on this important issue of accountability both when I initially raised the issue on 26 June and then made subsequent representations. It would be wrong to allow the public to form a view on this important issue based on the publication of a reply only without
understanding our initial email and our representations. That would lead to the public forming a view in a vacuum.”

Our view continues to be that the Report should be published at the earliest opportunity. This is an important issue of constitutional accountability. If the method of delivery is in question (which we do not accept) it can be delivered again and then tabled in Parliament and published this week. We ask that this happen without further delay if necessary by
the new Principal Auditor delivering the Report again this week.

Mr Azopardi added: “Otherwise all that is happening is that we all know a Report exists but it isn’t being released to the public. That just delays and denies accountability of the Government as the Report would then not come out for months at least till the Parliament is next in session.

EMAILS BETWEEN KEITH AZOPARDI & THE SPEAKER BELOW 👇🏼

EMAIL: Keith Azopardi to Speaker of Parliament – sent – 3 July 2025 – 9.29am

URGENT/Principal Auditor Report 2018/19/Representations on the Laying of the Report for Consideration

Dear Karen

Yesterday evening you indicated that you would be writing to me on the subject of my email of a week ago when I sought confirmation as to whether Parliament was in receipt of the latest Principal Auditor’s report for 2018/19.

As this has now been confirmed by the Principal Auditor himself things have factually moved on somewhat.

As such and in anticipation of you writing to me as you indicated I thought it would be helpful for me to explain in greater detail why we think that absent a positive immediate step by Government to lay the report today then it should be laid by you as Speaker under Standing Order 12(3) through the Clerk.

Indeed we would argue that this must happen for the reasons that follow and which was adopted by cross-party consensus as the constitutional practice to give vigour to the change brought about by the 2007 Constitution.

These are the points I would ask you to have regard to:

The extracts and exchanges between Peter Caruana and Joe Bossano at pp9, 13 and 14 are particularly illuminating.

At p9 the CM indicates that SO12(3) was to:

“…recognise the fact that some people whose papers previously had to be laid can now lay it themselves because under the new constitution they have been made officers of this House…they cannot come personally to lay the document but they can lay it through the clerk. In other words rather than the Principal Auditor sending the audited accounts of Gibraltar to the Government so that a Minister tables them, the Principal Auditor can send the reports directly to the Clerk, officer of the House to officer of the House with the request that they be laid on the table….i mean the whole idea of making them officers of this House is that people who serve constitutional functions that are supposed to be independent of the Government in the sense of almost being watchdogs of the Government should not then have to channel their communications to Parliament through the Government themselves. Both (the Ombudsman)…and the Principal Auditor exist primarily to assist in balancing the power between the State so to speak and the citizen the Government and the citizen and it is therefore appropriate that there should be a direct mechanism for them to lay documents in the House and indeed to be accountable to the House directly…”

At p13 the LOTO (who had indicated support at p12) indicated that he considered that the word “may” in SO12() should be “must” on the basis that “whether we had it in the rule or not it seems to me that there is no choice given that the Constitution requires the Principal Auditor to present the report to the Parliament…”

There followed an exchange as to the word “may” and as to the intention behind it on pp13-14

At p14 the CM postulated whether an amendment should be contemplated to make the word “shall” “…so that it makes clear that what we are purporting to regulate is routeology and not the actual laying…”

The LOTO at p14 then indicates the concern that “may” could be construed as the Principal Auditor having a choice to lay or not which is not what the Constitution intended.

The CM responds that “…it is not a matter of choice, that is clear, so we can only be providing in these rules for the methodology of doing so. The  methodology of it should not be up to him, it is up to us to say how this House wants to have papers laid before it by people who are not in it…”

After the Speaker’s suggestion at p14 the House received the suggestion from the CM on the current form of SO12(3) to make “…it clear that this is about the route and not about whether he needs to file it in the first place.”

The Speaker’s interjection also emphasises that the word “may” is not intended to describe an act of the Clerk but of the Principal Auditor. Indeed the Speakers suggestion makes clear that the “may” is an act of the Principal Auditor as to methodology of laying of the Report that then does not lead to a discretion of the Clerk to do so or not. In effect the Principal Auditor would be saying “I want it laid through you” and it must be so laid. That is how the practice has always been understood as I demonstrate below.

In other words if the Principal Auditor writes to the Speaker through the Clerk he is in effect invoking the requirement under SO12(3) to lay the Report before Parliament immediately under s74 Constitution and without the ability of anyone delaying that moment as that would be a breach of s74(3) of the Constitution.

I give you the Hansard references for your assistance below under point 4 for the years 2009 to date.  The Reports for 2005/06 and 2006/07 were also tabled under the new constitution respectively on 31 May 2007 and 3 April 2008.

The laying of the Report by the Speaker during the years 2007-2014 was always conducted in the same way and with the Speaker saying:

“I have the honour to report that in accordance with Standing Order 12(3), the Report of the Principal Auditor on the Annual Accounts of the Government of Gibraltar has been submitted to Parliament and I now rule that it has been laid on the Table.”

The practice on the presentation of the Principal Auditor’s report after 2014 was changed from that year so that the Reports since then have been tabled by the Chief Minister. While this was not the intention of the constitutional change which was plainly discussed in the 2007 Motion I do not have an issue with the CM laying the Report on the Table as long as it is understood that this must take place on the very next available Parliamentary day after receipt of the Report by the Speaker. That would accord with both the constitution, the intention which was accepted on a cross-party basis in 2007 and generalised practice since then.

From there I have prepared a table of the date of delivery of the report as against the date of tabling in the House.

You will see from this Table that the practice is clear that it was always tabled on the first available Parliamentary day after the Report was delivered to Parliament (except for 2019 which we consider was in breach of practice). The reason for the gap in 2015 to January 2016 was because of the intervening 2015 election that occurred after the Report had been received as there was no parliamentary day available after receipt.

The practice before the new Constitution was that the Principal Auditor’s Report was tabled by the Financial Secretary. As can be seen it was then intended that the Auditor should be able to table without having to go through the Government and more recently the CM has laid it.

Our view is that the change of practice in 2014 was not in accordance with the constitutional intention but as I say I would not raise an issue with it (at this stage) as long as the previous generalised practice is followed which is that the Report is laid the very next available Parliamentary day after the receipt of the Report by the Speaker to give effect to the constitution.

That is why our strong view is that absent a positive decision of the Government today to lay the Principal Auditor’s report immediately (today) then it is our respectful view that you should do so as Speaker as your predecessors have before you in the period 2007-2014

It seems to us that anything else amounts to a breach of the constitution and constitutional and parliamentary practice

I would therefore be grateful if you would take all these points on board in the constructive spirit that they are intended to assist you in coming to a view on a serious issue of accountability and constitutional practice.

As I indicated in my previous email I would be happy to discuss

Rgds

Keith