Find us on Google+

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Dora Siliya Tribunal - Final Report

Much later than we would have liked. Unfortunately the Government does not value transparency and it has taken a while for us to hunt down the full electronic version of the full report (not just the summary heavily trailed in the press). A huge thanks to a friend who passed this onto us. Part of the role of this blog is to act as public archive, in the absence of a coherent system of government dissemination of important information. Apparently the Government does not think it is important for the public to have information as quickly as possible. I am still hunting down the full electronic version of the Indaba Report. Will make that available as soon as possible.

Dora Siliya Tribunal - Final Report

1 comment:

  1. Now that collective attention has been placed back on the fate of Zamtel rather than the scandal of corruption investigations, the last thing I want to do is dredge back up the whole debate by pouring over the fine print of the entire transcript. However there is still one piece of information left unanswered which I think it would be good to have out in the open before any new MoU's are signed with potential foreign telecom partners. That is namely the identity of the Israeli company that originally sent representatives which accompanied RP Capital's representative to their initial meeting with Minister Silaya.

    According to the testimony before the tribunal, the unnamed company expressed interest in purchasing either the entire company or a smaller equity stake in it, while RP Capital was simultaneously offering their services to value Zamtel's assets. While the RP Capital representative was unaccompanied at the meeting in which the initial MoU was signed, apparently the unnamed company did in fact write a formal letter of interest regarding the eventual purchase of Zamtel to the Minister's Office. She simply testified that she could not recall the name, but she did describe it as an Israeli company. Therefore it should not be too difficult for someone with access to this sort of record to provide the identity of this second company to the public, so that it's subsequent behavior with regard to the Zamtel tender process can be evaluated in light of their stated intentions, properly separating themselves from any further skulduggery (granting them the presumption of innocence).

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.