Auditor-general Andreas Papaconstantinou may have been appointed by President NiKos Christodoulides, but this did not stop him slamming the government’s proposals for the radical reform of the audit service. The relevant bills were presented to House legal affairs committee on Wednesday by Justice Minister Marios Hartsiotis, who had the thankless task of persuading deputies about the need for the reform. He did not do very well in this regard.

Papaconstantinou said the bill, which envisages the creation of a three-member ‘audit council’ to control and supervise the auditor-general, was a government attempt to impose a ‘big brother’ on the audit service. This was no accident, he said. The audit office was the only independent service that investigated and exposed irregularities of those running the government and this was the reason the government wanted to exercise control over it, Papaconstantinou explained.

It is very difficult to disagree with him and accept the justification for the bill offered by Hartsiotis, who claimed the role of the ‘audit council’ would be supportive and advisory. The taxpayer would have to employ three people (two accountants and one lawyer) on a full-time basis, in order to ‘advise and support’ the auditor-general? The minister was being disingenuous, because the provisions of the law place the auditor-general under the authority of this ‘audit council’, which would have the power to supervise all reports prepared by the audit office, set the annual agenda and so forth.

The idea for this council was hatched when Odysseas Michaelides was auditor-general and the government wanted to have someone to exercise control over him because he had gone rogue, regularly abusing his powers, engaging in personalised attacks and frequently acting like prosecutor, judge and jury. The president and his advisors decided that the only way to rein in Michaelides was by changing the law and placing the auditor-general under the authority of an ‘audit council’ that would control him.

With Odysseas’ employment terminated by the supreme constitutional court, there is no need for such a council now, which would not only be costly, but, more worryingly, end the status of the auditor-general, as an independent state official. If the law is approved, this independent official, whose constitutional role is to exercise control over the state machinery and government decisions, would be answerable to three government appointees on the audit council, whose main responsibility would be to protect the government of the day, by suppressing critical reports.

There is no need for any supervisory or advisory council, so long as the provision that limits the term of the auditor-general to eight years without the option of renewal, is approved. This, together with the financial independence of the audit service, also safeguards the independence of the auditor-general as all reasons to pander to the government would have been removed by the new law. The eight-year limit for staying in the post is vital because no state post should be held until the official reached retirement age. This is contrary to every rule of sound management.

The good news is that the parties are not very keen on approving the ‘audit council’ but they unanimously support the eight-year limit on service.