It is in the interest of the President to protect the independence of the Auditor General. Any attempts to remove him from office, no matter how clever, will be seen as interference with his work and will irreparably tarnish the President’s record.
Once appointed the Auditor General must be allowed to hold office until the age of sixty years subject to an Article 199(4) extension for a 2+2+1 post-retirement tenure.
On the record, I also urge the President to grant the Auditor General this Article 199(4) dispensation.
The law is abundantly clear that the AG’s right to leave of absence cannot be varied to his disadvantage. The reason for the law is to protect his independence. Thus, the AG cannot be forced to take his leave or to forfeit his leave.
There must be a compelling reason to force the AG to take his leave. His leave conditions must be determined by the more specific Audit Service Act not the general Labour Act (generalia specialibus non derogant).
I do not find the Mills’ precedent persuasive. Actually, I find it amusing.
There are several ongoing audits, including KROLL, MP backpay, etc. where one can reasonably say the AG is clashing with the executive.
Under those circumstances, any attempts to remove the AG will offend separation of powers, constitutionalism and the growing of our institutions.
The President must reconsider and the AG must stand his grounds.
128/1820 is a bona fide scam and sham.
Source: Prof Azar