3.6. On 15th December 2009, ETKL submitted to the Commission a copy a duly
executed agreement dated 15th October 2009 entered into between ETKL and
ACL for the provision of E1 services.
3.7. Upon review of the agreement sent to it by ETKL, the Commission was of
the opinion that the parties had indeed entered into an interconnection
agreement. In this regard, the Commission therefore noted that the
disconnection of the E1 link by ETKL was unilateral contrary to Clause 45(2)
of the Regulations. Consequently, on 17th December 2009, the Commission
wrote to the parties, firstly directing ETKL to re-establish the E1 link to ACL
with immediate effect, and secondly, requesting the parties to submit their
records of transmissions made between 1st and 4th of November 2009 to
support or deny the allegations made by ETKL that the E1 link was used for
fraudulent/criminal activities by ACL during this period.
3.8. In response, ETKL, vide a letter dated 21st December 2009 referred the
Commission to Clause 42(8) of the Regulations that obligates the Commission
to carry out investigations where there is allegation of contravention or failure
to comply with the provisions of the Act or Regulations; Clause 42(6)(e) on
the discretion of the Commission to exempt a licensee from the obligation to
enter into an interconnect agreement; and Clause 37(6) on the lawful use of a
service acquired as part of interconnection. The letter was silent on whether
ETKL had complied with the directive to re-establish the E1 link with ACL.
3.9. The Commission reviewed the issues raised by ETKL and wrote to ETKL on
23rd December 2009 reiterating that a party wishing to terminate an
interconnection agreement can only do so in the manner prescribed by Clause
45(2) of the Regulations, and further advised ETKL to comply with the
directive of the Commission to re-establish the E1 link with ACL with
immediate effect.
Page 3 of 11