The Anti-Corruption Commission detectives were seen at the Registrar of Companies putting together pieces of information on the companies involved in this transaction. The exercise aims to determine whether there is to initiate an investigation. Companies tandem Nandanee Soornack and Rakesh Gooljaury are also reviewed by the hounds for ten days.
The technical aspects of the case are also subject to special attention. First question that arose was whether the SICOM falls under the definition of'' public body'', as recommended by the Framework Law Anti-Corruption Commission or the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, there seems to be a blur to it. That in view of a previous survey about allegations of favoritism on specific recruitment within the SICOM.
Moreover, it supports in the areas concerned that the Board did not SICOM qu'avaliser decisions made by the executive of the company. The Board of Directors shall decide on the company policy and not on the decision-making performance as the purchase of a building.
Controversy remains because the lawyer Lobine Kushal, who is chairman of the Board of SICOM was associated in business with the named Rakesh Gooljaury in other companies, as those involved in the purchase of building. The lawyer, however, defended the radio arguing that the procedures for the acquisition were launched in September 2010 and the letter of intent dated January 2011. However, he said, it was not until 2012 that he found himself at the head of SICOM.
Thus, according to the information gathered, it is not Kushal Lobine but Bhoojeedhur Obeegadoo, the Chief Executive, who had the last word in the transaction.