While the President holds the constitutional authority to make interim administrative arrangements, the decision to place the National Audit Office (NAO) under the financial wing of the Treasury Secretary raises significant ethical and structural alarms.
1. The Fundamental Conflict of Interest
In any functioning democracy, the Auditor General (AG) is the “watchdog” of the public purse. The Treasury, led by the Treasury Secretary, is the primary entity managing those funds.
- The Paradox: If the Treasury Secretary controls the budget, promotions, and administrative approvals of the Audit Office, the Auditor is effectively subservient to the person they are supposed to audit.
- The Result: This creates a “chilling effect” where the NAO may feel pressured—consciously or subconsciously—to limit its scrutiny of Treasury-managed projects to avoid administrative retaliation.
2. Bypassing Qualified Professionals
The argument for “administrative necessity” falls flat when qualified senior officials are available. With professionals like Dharmapala Gammanpila possessing decades of experience, the refusal to confirm a permanent appointment suggests a preference for control over competence. By opting for a “temporary patch” via the Treasury rather than a permanent independent appointment, the administration risks being seen as intentionally weakening the watchdog.
3. The Collapse of Parliamentary Oversight
Without an independent AG, the constitutional mechanism of COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) and COPA (Committee on Public Accounts) collapses. This creates an “accountability vacuum” where billions in public spending can occur without the mandatory legislative check-and-balance, serving the interests of the executive branch at the expense of the taxpayer.