1. In trying to exonerate itself FSG says it has never been contracted by Command Agriculture. Then it makes a classic confession & avoidance: we were contracted by “a private company” to which we supplied fertiliser which was then supplied to Command Agriculture (paragraph 7) 
2. What this means:
a. There’s a confession by FSG that it supplied fertiliser to Command Agriculture albeit through a third party “private company” but it clumsily avoids naming this middleman which received the product en route to Command Agriculture
a. There’s a confession by FSG that it supplied fertiliser to Command Agriculture albeit through a third party “private company” but it clumsily avoids naming this middleman which received the product en route to Command Agriculture
b. If FSG really wanted to lift the fog it would have named this middleman “private company”. By not naming the middleman they have raised more suspicions over the deal. Who owns the private company? Did it go to tender for the Command Agriculture deal? How much was it paid?
c. Parliament (and @Zacconline) must summon FSG to at least name the middleman & then summon that middleman to answer a few questions.
Even if FSG were correct it doesn’t clear the possibility that the middleman was paid more money and only a fraction of it was paid to FSG
Even if FSG were correct it doesn’t clear the possibility that the middleman was paid more money and only a fraction of it was paid to FSG
d. Parliament (and @ZACConline) must obtain all documentary evidence pertaining to the deals between the middleman “private company” & Command Agriculture & between the middleman “private company” and FSG
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
