CG dismisses charges by Petcom chairman
CONTRACTOR general Greg Christie yesterday countered a claim made by Petcom chairperson Barbara Clarke that his office, during an investigation into the petroleum company’s procurement practices last year, never interviewed her.
In a letter responding to Clarke’s allegation, published in the Observer yesterday, Christie wrote: “The article.alleges that Ms Clarke was never interviewed by the OCG investigator.
The OCG categorically denies this claim. The OCG investigator did, in fact, ask questions of Ms Clarke and met with her on December 7, 2006, in the presence of the general manager of Petcom, for more than 30 minutes.”
The same investigator, Christie said, made a follow-up call to Clarke on December 12, 2006 with regard to a Declaration of Interest.
In the Observer article, Clarke, who heads Elegant Traders Ltd, a firm that deals with professional training and product promotions, challenged the contractor-general to show proof that there was conflict of interest in her dealings with Petcom.
“I have not received a contract from Petcom since I became chairperson,” she said. “The contractor general needs to tell me if conflict of interest can be retroactive. I challenge him to prove conflict of interest.”
The contractor general, in response, pointed to statements he had made in the official report on the matter, dated January 16. In that report, Christie wrote: “Ms Clarke was, at all material times, the majority shareholder, principal and managing director of Elegant Traders Ltd, and that a conflict of interest existed wherein Ms Clarke, in her position as chairperson of Petcom, had the capacity to influence and, from all appearances, may have influenced the award of contracts to her business interest, Elegant Traders Ltd.”
According to the report, Elegant Traders had been awarded 18 contracts valued at just under $5 million for the training of Petcom employees.
But Clarke maintained that she only received one contract (in 1998) from the petroleum company and that the 18 invoices Christie saw were not for separate contracts but different “services provided at different times under the single contract”.
