We Had No Relationship With Rivers On Aircraft N565RS – Caverton Helicopters

Advertisement

bombardier_bd700_globalexpress

Aviation company, Caverton Helicopters, has denied any relationship between it and Rivers State Government over an aircraft with registration number N565RS, contrary to the submission by House of Representatives’ committees on Justice and Aviation.

In a statement, yesterday, the aviation company denied the existence of such a relationship and demanded concrete evidence from those who claim otherwise.


It will be recalled that in their report, laid before the House last Thursday, the committees not only submitted that there was an agency relationship between Rivers State and the company, they called for the prosecution of Caverton Helicopters “for providing information that led the authorities to wrongly believe that Rivers State Government falsified documents leading to the grounding of its aircraft.”

In a reaction, yesterday, Caverton Helicopters said it was surprising how the committees arrived at such weighty position and recommendation “without an independent, forensic investigation and without any counter-veiling evidence other than the mere say-so of a party to a dispute.”

The statement, by Mr. Waziri Adio, Communication Consultant to Caverton Helicopters, said: “We expected more rigour, nuance, balance and greater restraint from such an august body. We challenge those who insist on manufacturing an ‘agency relationship’ where none exists, to show concrete evidence.

Such concrete evidence should include mandate from Rivers State Government to Caverton Helicopters on the said aircraft; evidence of payment(s) to Caverton Helicopters with corresponding invoice(s) for the purported services provided by us to the state government in the last eight months on this aircraft; executed management or agency contract between Rivers State Government and Caverton Helicopters; and any correspondences (whether through letter or email) on the issue during the past eight-month period we were purportedly involved with the aircraft.”

The company maintained that the only relationship it had on the aircraft was an “unconsummated” one.

Source: Vangaurd

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here