Dear Editor,
The SN article ‘No basis in constitution, law for NICIL holding billions -Goolsarran’s audit’ (January 23) refers.
Recently, there has been a lot said about the conclusions which are detailed in Anand Goolsarran’s NICIL audit. What has been central in Mr Goolsarran’s thesis is his observation which you headlined, ie, there is no basis in law for the retention of monies that NICIL earns and for not passing through these earnings to the Consolidated Fund. I have two comments:
First, Mr Goolsarran’s recommendations are no different from his pronouncements over the last few years. Prior to the incremental disclosures of his audit of NICIL, he had, for the past few years, been making this claim in his many writings that were made public. Since it is his opinion he is entitled to it, even if it is flawed. However, when he draws conclusions as an auditor on a legal issue, I beg to differ.
Thus, second, I bring to attention the fact that whenever the matter of a legal issue arises, the Professional Chartered Accountant is bound by the principle that legal issues should be left to those qualified to pronounce on them, and to the courts.
Yours faithfully,
Manzoor Nadir
