Emi Systems Nigeria Limited, one of the companies indicted by the Office
of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) has given the Presidency seven
days ultimatum to retract the publication which it described as false or
be sued.
In a letter titled, Re: Buhari’s Panel
indicts over 300 ONSA Contractors, recovers N7 billion”, counsel to the
company, Greenfeild Chambers said the publication disparaged its client
before right thinking men in the society as it completed and handed over
all jobs it was awarded way back in 2002.
“Our client’s attention was drawn by
their customers, business associates and contractors to the press
statement accredited to Garba Shehu, the Special Assistant (media) to
the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the report from the
investigating panel of the Office of the National Security Adviser
(ONSA) to the effect that EMI Systems Ltd was indicted as a company
which ‘outrightly failed to execute contract(s) or did so partially and
have therefore been asked to refund various sums’.
“Our client finds the above press ‘statement of indictment’ as unfounded, false, baseless and does not reflect the true state of affairs regarding the contracts handled by our client and the engagement by our client with the investigating panel that led to several joint site verification visits carried out by the panel and our client.
“Our client finds the above press ‘statement of indictment’ as unfounded, false, baseless and does not reflect the true state of affairs regarding the contracts handled by our client and the engagement by our client with the investigating panel that led to several joint site verification visits carried out by the panel and our client.
“For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to
state unequivocally that all the contracts awarded to EMI Systems by the
ONSA have been fully completed and the contracts were awarded in 2012”,
Emeka Obegolu of Greenfeild Chambers said.
The solicitor to the company claimed that the publication cast their client as “a company with no track record of project management and completion; a company that cannot be trusted with contracts in the public sector of any serious government, and a company lacking in integrity and corporate ethics in their day to day business.”
They explained that the contract awarded to them was valued at €722,059.96 for the four contracts, almost four years ago and the contracts had since been performed to the satisfaction of the ONSA.
The solicitor to the company claimed that the publication cast their client as “a company with no track record of project management and completion; a company that cannot be trusted with contracts in the public sector of any serious government, and a company lacking in integrity and corporate ethics in their day to day business.”
They explained that the contract awarded to them was valued at €722,059.96 for the four contracts, almost four years ago and the contracts had since been performed to the satisfaction of the ONSA.
According to them, they were invited and
honoured the investigative panel where they presented documentary
evidence to the satisfaction of all parties showing that they did not
have any outstanding obligation with the only area of doubt being
whether the payment received by the company was net or inclusive of all
taxes.
“That the panel insisted that our client should pay taxes on the payments made to it while our client opined that as a matter of practice, government withholds taxes before payment is made, as the items supplied were individually priced.
“That the tax issue was not conclusive as our client is consulting with tax practitioners to get professional advice on the issue of tax liability as stated above,” they stated.
Obegolu said that there was never a time their client was accused of non-completion of jobs in the 20 years they had been into security solutions and contractual relationships.
“That the panel insisted that our client should pay taxes on the payments made to it while our client opined that as a matter of practice, government withholds taxes before payment is made, as the items supplied were individually priced.
“That the tax issue was not conclusive as our client is consulting with tax practitioners to get professional advice on the issue of tax liability as stated above,” they stated.
Obegolu said that there was never a time their client was accused of non-completion of jobs in the 20 years they had been into security solutions and contractual relationships.
“We therefore, on behalf of EMI Systems
Ltd, demand that Mr. Garba Shehu issues an immediate retraction of the
misleading publication concerning our client and a letter addressed to
our client conveying the said retraction. This is the minimum that will
assuage the battered corporate image of our client and reassure their
customers of the corporate integrity of our client and continuing
commitment to excellent service delivery.
“Take notice therefore, that unless we receive the letter of retraction within seven (7) days of the date of receipt of this letter, we have our client’s standing instruction to employ all legal means to seek redress for the publication including seeking damages in libel before a court of competent jurisdiction,” they demanded.
“Take notice therefore, that unless we receive the letter of retraction within seven (7) days of the date of receipt of this letter, we have our client’s standing instruction to employ all legal means to seek redress for the publication including seeking damages in libel before a court of competent jurisdiction,” they demanded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment