Once the attorney general of the nation, Kenya Porcell, confessed in one interview in Telemetro that audits delivered by the General Comptroller of the Republic were made with the participation of a private consultant, jurists agree that these would not have any validity.
This revelation not only casts doubt on the management of the audit entity, but also demonstrates the subjective perceptions of alleged cost overruns in five mega-projects of the last administration.
For the former attorney general of the nation Rogelio Cruz, attorney general Porcell´s statement is very strange.
He explained that in order to have greater certainty of the participation of the private auditing it should be known to what extent the private consultant participated, since so far this is unknown, and this inhibits any opinion to be given.
However, he emphasized that their participation draws much attention, because in his interview the attorney spoke that it would be a diligence of cost overruns, in which the Prosecutor's office in charge should be investigated if there was misappropriation of funds.
"it would give the impression that not necessarily the cost overrun may mean embezzlement, and we should look at this fairly dutifully to define if this embezzlement", said the lawyer.
Lawyer Cruz pointed out that the comptrollership function is well established both in the political Constitution of Panama and the Law governing the institution, which is based on the review of the good public fund management and, therefore, their audits are of various kinds.
"For example, if an audit would determine if there was illicit enrichment, this is distinct from one of costs and cost overruns, and also different from that leading to verify embezzlement or mismanagement of funds", he said.
Lawyers and jurists believe that putting the work of the Comptroller first would be prohibited by law.
In this sense, the lawyer and former deputy minister of work Luis Eduardo Camacho expressed that there cannot be an evaluation by a private auditing firm because legal regulations establish that it is a privative work of the Comptroller.
"A private entity cannot establish an overrun or overpricing of a work because that is something that the Constitution gives the Comptroller", said Camacho, who argued that if the Public Ministry (MP) based its findings on another type of fundraising, and obviously it is a document that loses value.
He added that it has already repeatedly been demonstrated that there are errors in the audits submitted by the public ministry, because in two months a report of such coverage cannot be issued.
"That proves that the report is wrong and full of subjective comments that in the end will be demonstrated will not reach the conclusions affirmed.
Before this, lawyer and expert in public procurement Ernesto Cedeño said that private audits do not have greater validity when you try to determine a crime against the public administration.
"There is a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice that determines this so which took place when the FIS (Social Investment Fund) tried to hire a private consultant. That went to court, which declared that it takes qualified personnel of the Comptroller´s office to determine a possible shortage, and if the Comptroller´s office has not endorsed these private audits, this leaves the MP at a disadvantage and takes away legal validity from the audits", he instructed.
Even the exclusion of the Comptroller´s office from the investigations by the MP and its team of auditors would contrast with the statements of Comptroller Federico Humbert, who recently said that the responsible institution has qualified and sufficient personnel for the audits.
Although various society´s sectors claim that this would confirm the differences that exist between attorney general Porcell and Comptroller Humbert at the time of the investigation.