There is a growing unease in this country that demands serious attention, not dismissal, not deflection, and certainly not silence.
Recent allegations circulating publicly, including those highlighted on the Team Mohamed platform led by the Leader of the Opposition, raise troubling questions about the integrity and independence of the Auditor General’s Office. These are not minor claims. They strike at the very institution responsible for safeguarding public accountability.
At the center of these concerns is the position of Ms. Geeta Singh, Audit Director and spouse of Minister of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh. Even before one examines the specific allegations, the arrangement itself presents a fundamental governance problem. One office is responsible for managing public funds. The other is responsible for auditing how those funds are used.
No serious system of governance allows that line to blur.
As one public comment noted, “even if no wrongdoing is proven, this type of arrangement creates an unavoidable conflict of interest and undermines public confidence in the integrity of financial oversight.” Another simply asked, “How can we ensure accountability… if the most senior officer responsible for audits is married to the officer responsible for using the funds?”
These are not partisan questions. They are basic questions of governance.
The allegations themselves are even more disturbing. Reports from within the institution suggest that findings of financial mismanagement across ministries, involving billions in public funds, are allegedly ignored or softened. There are claims of favoritism in hiring and promotions, where qualified professionals are sidelined in favor of preferred individuals. There are suggestions of questionable procurement and travel practices, and even concerns about nepotism, with relatives reportedly positioned for advancement within the same office.
If even a fraction of this is true, then the issue is not just misconduct. It is institutional compromise.
And that leads to the central question.
Who audits the auditors?
Who investigates the office that is constitutionally mandated to investigate everyone else?
This is where the absurdity of the situation becomes most evident. The body entrusted with exposing corruption is now itself the subject of credible public concern, yet there appears to be no clear, independent mechanism stepping forward to examine these claims.
This is not sustainable.
Guyana cannot build a modern, credible state on a foundation where oversight bodies are perceived to be compromised. We cannot demand transparency from ministries while ignoring allegations within the institution tasked with enforcing that transparency. And we cannot ask citizens to trust the system when the system appears unwilling to examine itself.
This is bigger than any individual.
It is about the integrity of public institutions.
The appropriate response is not outrage for its own sake, nor is it blind defense. It is investigation. Independent, transparent, and credible investigation. If the allegations are false, then let them be disproven decisively. If they are true, then corrective action must follow swiftly.
Either way, the country deserves answers. Because when the Auditor General’s Office itself becomes a subject of doubt, the entire architecture of accountability begins to weaken. And once that happens, corruption does not just persist. It flourishes.
