Leaked report highlights several problems with the way the state owned tv station was being managed
There may have been a lot of jiggery pokery going on with the accounts over at NCN that resulted in the move to fire the company’s CEO and suspended the Programme Manager. A leaked report of an audit carried out by the Parmesar Accounting Firm highlights several problems with the way the state owned tv station was being managed. The report specifically dealt with the GT&T Jingle and Song Competition and payments that were made to the private account of the Programme Manager at NCN, Martin Goolsarran.
The report highlighted an issue that was raised by a staffer who eventually left the job. The report found that the CEO and the Programme Manager both requested accounts staff members to prepare backdated invoices under the NCN name charging GT&T for production of its song and jingle competition. GT&T had already issued the payments to Martin Goolsarran in his name after he requested the payments and also sent in an invoice under his name.
He collected over 3 million dollars and deposited it into his personal account claiming that he had collected the money for HJTV since that company was contracted to assist NCN. There were no contracts that could be found to support that. And there were no contracts either between GT&T and NCN for the production.
The Accounts staff refused to prepare the back dated invoices well aware that the two may have been trying to cover their tracks. The probe also found that NCN should have at least 52 cameras in its possession based on purchases over the past few years. Goolsarran later said only 10 cameras were at ncn head office and claimed that the others were either at other NCN locations or in the repair shops. The report found that there were several breaches in a number of the company’s policies.
The investigation was launched after the opposition used their majority in the National Assembly to cut the budget. NCN made over 500 million dollars on its own in 2011. The opposition maintained that the company did not need the support of the taxpayer’s purse.