AN ONGOING probe by the House Watchdog Committee into allegations that a developer had received preferential treatment by the Limassol Water Board (LWB) yesterday raised more questions than it answered.
The issue had been tabled by AKEL deputy Kikis Yiangou, who claimed the water board had not followed standard procedures when providing water for 102 plots of land belonging to Geodynamiki Ltd, going ahead with the work before receiving the total amount needed for the project beforehand.
Auditor-general Chrystalla Yiorkadji, who met water board officials on Tuesday, told the committee she was satisfied that nothing had been done deliberately in favour of the company.
“On the contrary, I am convinced they implemented the policy that the LWB would assume the cost of primary infrastructure projects,” Yiorkadji said.
She added: “But according to regulation, the costs burden the applicant and if there are other applicants, then it is spread.”
But according to a confidential LWB internal memo that Yiangou presented to the committee, an investigation into the matter found that this was in fact in violation of the regulations.
The memo also noted that the LWB director had failed to inform the board of his wife’s vested interests in the specific development.
Yiorkadji countered that the investigation had been prompted by her observations; regarding the issue of the director’s wife, the Auditor-general said there had been a letter from the director informing the chairman of the LWB of the matter.
Yiorkadji was backed on this by Limassol district officer Nicos Roussos, who added that the director had deemed unnecessary to inform the board since he had briefed the chairman.
Committee Chairman Christos Pourgourides, however, wondered why the chairman had not informed the investigating committee about the letter in his possession.
Further doubt was cast from documents presented by Yiangou, which said that the chairman had been informed on the matter on two completely different dates – one at beginning of the year in question and one in June of the same year.
In both cases, however, it had not been clarified if the chairman’s briefing by the director had been oral or in writing.
Roussos said the board had examined the issue and unanimously decided that there was no disciplinary issue.
Concerning the money spent by the LWB on the pipe project, Roussos explained that this had happened because the project had been considered to be part of the primary network and the practice was for the board to undertake the cost.
The committee will continue its investigation into the issue at a later date.
