Dear Editor – In your paper yesterday, one Titus Fika responded to an article, which I had published last week about the status of Gulatata’e Shipping Enterprises Ltd, the entity that administers the LC Gulatata’e.
In comments attributed to him, Mr Fika denied owning shares in the company.
Extracts from Company Haus revealed otherwise. Mr Titus Fika owns 20 per cent in the Gulatata’e Shipping Enterprises Ltd.
A copy of the directors/shareholders certificate is attached for purposes of record.
Secondly, Hon Fika, for the first time disclosed that LC Gulatata’e is owned by the East Kwaio Constituency.
Extract from the Company Haus shows quite the contrary.
According to the Extract, Gulatata’e Shipping Enterprises Ltd is a local PRIVATE Company.
Not being a lawyer that I am, I don’t understand what a Private Company means.
Generally, I simply assume in this case that Gulatata’e is not a public company owned by the people of East Kwaio Constituency as claimed by the Speaker of the Malaita Provincial Assembly.
Rather, it is owned by three directors/shareholders who were appointed on 27 October 2015.
According to the record, they are:
- Eric Arifanata 40 per cent (the brother-in-law of the MP for East Kwaio)
- John Kennedy Taufunu 40 per cent (a relative of the MP for East Kwaio); and
- Titus Fika 20 per cent (a brother of the MP for East Kwaio)
So did I invent the story? Certainly not, Sir. The record is here for all to see.
Finally, Hon Fika complained about my being not checking with the Gulatata’e Management for correct information.
I did indeed, Sir.
But I had never received any information except that Mr Taufunu said he was checking the status of the company and would revert.
A week later, there was no response.
Yesterday, I again sent an email to Mr John Kennedy Taufunu, requesting information as to whether the company has paid the necessary fees to restore Gulatata’e Shipping Enterprises Ltd’s registration.
The other issue I wish to raise here is, given that the company is a private entity, why is an email address for the Office of the Prime Minister being used for private company purposes?
I rest my case.