• Friday, December 01, 2023
businessday logo


Caverton Helicopters denies having ‘agency relationship’ with Rivers on aircraft N565RS


Contrary to the submission by the House of Representatives’ committees on justice and aviation that an “agency relationship” exists between Caverton Helicopters and the Rivers State government on the aircraft with registration number N565RS, the aviation company on Sunday categorically denied the existence of such a relationship and demanded concrete evidence from those who claim otherwise.

It would 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 went on to call for the prosecution of Caverton Helicopters “for providing information that led the authorities to wrongly believe that Rivers State government falsified documents leading to grounding of its aircraft.”

In a reaction, 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.”

“We expected more rigour, more nuance, more balance, and greater restraint from such an august body,” added the statement signed by Waziri Adio, communication consultant to Caverton Helicopters.

“We challenge those who insist on manufacturing an ‘agency relationship’ where none exists to show concrete evidence,” the statement said.

“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. “We were instructed by ACASS, a Canadian firm, to help apply for importation permit for the aircraft in August 2012,” the company said.