Dear Editor,
The letter from Mr. Joel Bhagwandin of SphereX, which seeks to discredit the Auditor General’s Performance Audit of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), presents a flawed and academically rigid argument that risks undermining a crucial pillar of public accountability. While Mr. Bhagwandin styles himself as a “Financial & Economic Analysis” expert, it must be noted that he is not a professionally qualified auditor or accountant. This lack of specific professional accreditation in the field of audit undermines the authoritative tone of his technical critique and leads him to several fundamental misjudgments. I am told that he is a creature of Vice President Bharat Jagdeo, and if this is the case, the General Secretary of the PPP should have used an appropriately qualified agent to evaluate the work of the Auditor General.
We must therefore reject his central thesis for the following reasons:
Mr. Bhagwandin claims the audit is not a true “performance audit” because it focuses on asset management processes rather than direct flood control outcomes. This is a profound misunderstanding. Proper asset management is not separate from performance; it is the very foundation of it. Performance auditing is related to the evaluation of how an agency utilizes its resources (the main resource being its assets) to achieve economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, sometimes referred to as value for money auditing. However, only a qualified and certified auditor who is trained in the art and science of auditing will be aware of this. A multi-million-dollar pump that is undocumented, poorly maintained, or unaccounted for, due to faulty processes, will fail when needed most. The Auditor General was correct to assess whether the NDIA has the basic systems in place to manage the tools it uses to execute its mandate. Evaluating the integrity of these systems is a direct and highly relevant measure of performance.
While he correctly cites INTOSAI standards, he applies them with the rigor of a theoretician, rather than the practicality of a practitioner. It is understandable, as Mr. Bhagwandin is not a Chartered Auditor or a Certified Accountant. Performance audits are not monolithic; they can and do focus on key enablers of effectiveness, such as asset management. By focusing on this critical subsystem, the Auditor General provided a targeted and actionable assessment. Mr. Bhagwandin’s interest in data like “kilometres of canals maintained” or “acreage served” would be more relevant to a different performance audit. First, it is important to determine the original objective of this performance audit and assess it against those guidelines, rather than risk misinterpreting the process. To dismiss this audit because it follows a different scope is to overlook its specific value.
The assertion that the Audit Office “ignored” management’s responses is disingenuous. The standard and proper practice in public audit reporting is to state the finding, state management’s response, and then allow the finding to stand if the response is inadequate. The NDIA’s responses—often mere acknowledgments or promises to improve—do not invalidate the factual findings of poor record-keeping, lack of maintenance schedules, and missing assets. The Auditor General’s job is to present the facts and the entity’s position, not to “reconcile” them away. The report’s credibility is strengthened by this transparency, not weakened. This act from Mr. Bhagwandin is a dangerous attempt to undermine and dismember the State Auditors, who, from all accounts, are true professionals. Mr. Bhagwandin’s uninformed attack on the Audit Office can undermine the very State that he is seeking to protect because a weakened Audit Office for the PPP will also be a weakened Audit Office when the Opposition wins power in the future. Mr. Jagdeo should caution Mr. Bhagwandin on this dangerous path.
Mr. Bhagwandin’s lengthy list of recommended metrics for the NDIA to report is a classic tactic of shifting the goalposts. It is an attempt to bury the clear, documented failures of basic administrative competence under a mountain of future performance data. Before the NDIA can credibly report on the “acreage served,” it must first be able to account for the pumps and excavators it owns. The Audit Office exposed a foundational crack, and Mr. Bhagwandin is complaining that they didn’t measure the colour of the roof. The Auditor General’s report performed a vital public service by revealing significant lapses in the management of critical national infrastructure. Mr. Bhagwandin’s letter appears to offer a different perspective regarding these issues at the NDIA and raises questions about accountability.
His commentary lacks the grounding of professional audit experience, reads as an academic exercise detached from the practical realities of governance and accountability, and most importantly, comes across as a hatchet job to cover up the performance failures at the NDIA. I wonder who put him up to this nonsense? We should commend the Audit Office for its work in an increasingly difficult governance environment and demand that the NDIA fix its basic systems, not entertain this drivel that passes as professional opinions from political hitmen like Mr. Bhagwandin, that miss the forest for the trees.