Second revisit of the NICIL controversy (Part II)

Accountability Watch


In my last week’s column, I gave a background to the Public Corporations Act 1988 and assessed the implications of the notification of 18 July 2000 relating to the vesting in NICIL movable and immovable property of the State. We noted that NICIL was not deemed a public corporation and therefore the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to it, except as provided for in the above-mentioned notification. The notification itself is not in keeping with the Act since Section 5, to which it refers, is applicable to a new corporation whereas NICIL was incorporated since 1990.

In addition, the Minister has been applying Section 8 of the Act as his authority for disposing of State assets vested in NICIL. That section, however, deals with transfers of undertakings to public corporations and not to a company such as NICIL, notwithstanding that it is a government company. There was also evidence that the vesting of State assets in NICIL, as well as their disposal,  …..To continue reading, login or subscribe now.

Join the Conversation

After you comment, click Post. If you're not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

The Comments section is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness. We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity. We moderate ALL comments, so your comment will not be published until it has been reviewed by a moderator.