Instead of aligning ourselves with either press release, the real questions we should be asking are:
- a) Were there minutes of the meeting at State House when the Auditor General was invited to discuss his appointment?
- b) Who was present at that meeting, and can their testimony be verified?
- c) Was there any written or recorded communication confirming acceptance. We saw a rejection of the appointment/redeployment but was there a change of heart 12 hours later?
Until such facts are clarified, I would suggest that we refrain from categorical pronouncements. Going forward, it may even be wise for intended appointees to be accompanied by at least one witness during discussions of redeployment or appointment, so as to prevent disputes of this nature.
That said, it is important to reflect on our collective consistency as a profession. Numerous issues touching on good governance, ethical integrity, and even constitutional compliance have arisen in this country without eliciting the same level of reaction from the legal community. Selective engagement risks creating the perception that we intervene only when it suits particular narratives. If we are to remain credible guardians of the rule of law, our voice must be principled, even handed, and engaged on all matters that implicate governance and constitutionalism not only those that capture public or political controversy.
