A former Minister accused me of being unprofessional in discussing in one of my columns the report on the forensic audit of the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd (NICIL). I had written several columns before on NICIL and therefore it was an opportune moment to update my previous writings on the entity. That apart, two legal opinions, one of which sought to challenge the findings contained in the report, were recently released to this newspaper. As the author of the report, I felt it obliged to comment on these opinions.
Cabinet’s decision on the transactions audit of NICIL
Concerns were expressed about Cabinet’s decision for the Auditor General to conduct Phase II of the forensic audit of NICIL. This “transactions” audit phase involves a more detailed examination of the underlying records/transactions because the scope of the original audit was extensive, covering a period of 14-year. It was therefore not possible for such detailed examination to be carried out within the timeframe set for the audit. Cabinet also instructed that both the Chief Executive Officer and his Deputy proceed on administrative leave to facilitate this second phase.
A review of NICIL’s website indicated prior to 27 September 2012, the company was eleven years in arrears in having audited accounts, a serious violation of the Companies Act. Concerned about the state of accountability at NICIL, a Government company, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 14 of 27 June 2012 calling on the
