Reader’s Letter: An assertion of important and relevant facts

POSTED: 08/12/11 7:21 PM

Dear Mr. Editor,

I refute those allegations of “the Supervisory Board has done everything within its authority to see to it that the managing director complies with the laws that govern the company and manages the company in accordance with basic business principles.” Mr. Lambert has omitted important and relevant facts and has put forth allegations which are inaccurate.
Further down in this same article it is clearly stated that the Supervisory Board, with the knowledge that the present managing director would be entitled to vacation, still saw fit not to have his contract renewed or extended beyond December 31, 2011. From this one can only deduce that his vacation was approved by the Supervisory Board. This rash decision to not renew his contract seems to have been taken by the Shareholders Foundation upon the advice of the Supervisory Board even though the 2010 financial statements have to be completed by September 30, 2011.
Now the Chairman of the Board wants to be realistic and informs that the preparation of certain requested information is very time-consuming and will not be ready in the required time-period.

At such a critical time for the company they should have been more realistic when giving advice to the foundation and the minister concerning the non-renewal of the present managing director’s contract before making such a self-indulgent decision. Where was the “watchful eye” of the Supervisory Board when this reckless decision was made? Is this the manner in which the Supervisory Board has taken measures to protect the interest of the company? Perhaps the shareholder should keep a “watchful eye” on this uncontrolled Supervisory Board.
If the company was in such critical financial position as the Board proclaims how is it possible that management was acquitted and discharged from liability for the financial management conducted during the fiscal years of his tenure? Is it the board’s sole intent to mislead the public?

The statement that “the managing director is responsible for the management of the company and represents in all matters regarding the company” only seems to apply when it suits the Chairman of the Board. I can even recall that Mr. Julius Lambert was reprimanded for arrogantly assuming the role of the incumbent managing director during the presentation of GEBE’s book. Yesterday’s article quotes Mr. Lambert as follows: “No one should waste time and effort on negative press”. The former managing director was appointed as Chairman of the Supervisory Board in July 2008 and the first negative press was published by him in September 2008. Testament to this are the numerous articles that have been published under the guise of “from sources close to the Board”. At this point in time and after a very tumultuous 5-year tenure during which the managing director was never given a fair chance to run the company due to constant interference by Mr. Lambert no reasonable thinking person can denounce the managing director for protecting his own interest.

It is misleading and hypocritical to now state that the Supervisory Board may never give an instruction to a managing director and that the managing director is not in any way obliged to accept an advice or act according to an advice of the Supervisory Board of Directors. This same board has stated on several occasions that it would seek his termination due to the fact that he was not following their advice. This outcome should have been expected because where in the world is it common-place for a young, modern, professional and principled current managing director to be supervised by a decrepit, passé, unethical and recently retired former managing director?
I believe that it is incumbent upon the Shareholder/Government to correct the record when faced with incomplete facts and unfounded allegations.

Sincerely,
Rasheem T.T. Wani

Did you like this? Share it:
Reader's Letter: An assertion of important and relevant facts by

Comments are closed.