Dear Editor,
Anand Goolsarran in another section of the media on September 19, 2016 misled the public. I give him a ‘C’ grade due to his obfuscation of the material available to him and his tendency to ignore the substance of the transaction.
If my grading was done at Ivy University level, the grade would have been lower, due to his convenient omissions.
1. The Chairman of the GWI Board issued a statement… False
2. Where in accounting or law – does it define that property, building and erections sold, exclude a water well or similar asset?
3. NICIL’s position on who owns the well is omitted. Who owns the well is a question Goolsarran should ask NICIL. GWI awaits the sale agreement from NICIL for the entire property with building and erections thereon.
4. Vesting Order Number 14 of 2002 according to Goolsarran, does not detail the assets transferred to GWI.
5. Goolsarran says via Order No. 40 of 2010, the Sanata Complex was transferred to QAII, then makes a convenient and illogical disconnect between the Public Corporation Act and the Companies Act.
6. There is no evidence that several buildings and erections are included in the Valuation of June 2007, including the well.
7. It is revealing that items certified by the external auditor provide sufficient grounds for Goolsarran to treat as the Auditor General findings as irrefutable evidence as published in the media on September 20.
8. Goolsarran does not state when and how the well was included in GWI asset register.
9. What rational basis does Goolsarran use to pontificate that QAII is a customer of GWI for the property formerly known as Sanata Complex, when QAII is the owner of the property, buildings and erections; where the well is located.
10. Based on several references to absence of evidence – Goolsarran still manages to conclude that QAII does not own the well.
11. Is Goolsarran suggesting that QAII should pay electricity costs incurred, related to the 9000 plus residents receiving water from the well?
It strikes me that Goolsarran undermined several positions he took during the NICIL audit. NICIL should issue a statement on who owns the well.
Kind regards,
Nigel Hinds
