17 October 2024 – Local Government Commission of Inquiry (LGCI)
Jaja Cham served as the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) for 1 year 4 months.
The witness was given four (4) vouchers, and he confirmed that they were all from the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC).
Jaja Cham said one of the vouchers was payment for a trip to Dakar on an official mission. The request attached to the invoice was by Dembo Sanneh (Director of Administration), and it was dated 16 May 2019. The payment was for Yusupha Sanneh (driver) for an amount of D34,320. On who prepared the voucher, the witness said he does not know. On who approved it, he said he was the CEO at the time, but he did not sign the voucher. He added that his deputy (Bakary Jawo) signed it. The witness reiterated that he did not sign to approve the payment. Instead, it was his deputy who signed it.
“Were you aware that he signed this?” Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez asked the witness.
“No,” Jaja Cham replied.
“How is that possible?” Gomez asked.
“I wasn’t aware,” Cham said.
“Why won’t you be aware? Were you not in the office?” Gomez asked again.
“I should be in office,” Cham said.
“Did you authorise him to sign on your behalf?” Gomez asked.
“For this one, no [I did not authorise him,” he said.
The witness said the director of finance signed it. He added that the recipient signed it, but there is no name. He stated that a witness signed, but there was no name.
“Your statement is you know nothing about the voucher,” Gomez told the witness.
“I do not know much about the voucher,” the witness replied.
“You know nothing about it,” Gomez stated again.
“I don’t know much,” the witness answered.
The second voucher was payment for Congress and Conference Local/Overseas.
“Did you authorise that particular voucher?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“Yes,” Cham said.
He stated that the director of finance also signed the voucher. He said the voucher was prepared by Nyima Gibba, and the request was prepared by Dembo S.N. Sanneh (director of administration). The request was for the payment of per diem for Mayor Talib Bensouda, Isatou Faal, Nourideen Adams, and the driver Yusupha Sanneh. The payment was for attending a 3-day stakeholders meeting in Dakar.
The third voucher was a payment for per diem for the PR Officer and the Protocol Officer to facilitate a visa application process in Dakar for the mayor, who was supposed to travel to Canada. The witness was the one who made the request and confirmed it. However, he came up with the claim saying “there is a signature that looks like mine.”
“If the signature looks like yours, you more than all people can tell the Commission whether signature is yours or not,” Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness.
The witness took time to look at the signature.
“I am not sure it is my signature,” the witness said.
“Is it correct to say it is not your signature?” Gomez asked.
“I am not sure it is my signature,” he said.
“Tell me, wherever you see your signature, you will recognise it?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“Yes. I have doubt in this signature,” the witness answered.
“What makes you have doubt?” Gomez asked.
Cham explained that his style is that he gives approval on the request itself, and he does not have the time to type and print a document to approve a request.
“The first page on the voucher is totally not mine,” Cham said.
“How about the signature on the request?” Gomez asked.
“I doubt that one, too,” he said.
He was given a memo frome the office of the mayor dated 16 May 2019. The witness said the memo had the subject “request for support” and it was addressed to him. It was for the travel of the PR Officer and the Protocol Officer to Dakar.
The fourth voucher was for the payment of per diem to the PR Officer and the Protocol Officer for their trip to Dakar. The witness said he did not approve it. Instead, it was his deputy who signed it together with the director of finance.
The vouchers were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits.
“How do you account for these payments in your absence?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness testified that the KMC has internal control mechanisms wherein the finance and the internal audit departments should ensure that all payments raised are genuine and if in case he travels outside the country, on his return, he should be briefed.
“You were not briefed on these payments,” Gomez asked.
“Exactly, I wasn’t briefed” the witness replied.
“Do you think that is correct?” Gomez asked.
“I don’t think so,” the witness replied.
The witness was asked about how council staff travel to attend events, programmes, or pieces of training. He said they look at the programme, and priority is given to the department whose work relates to the training or event. He added that the management would nominate that person and he would be let to go.
“It means, for anyone to travel in the KMC, you should know about it as the CEO,” Counsel Gomez said.
“Yes, I should be aware,” the witness answered.
He was given a voucher. It was in relation to an invitation to the mayor by the Embassy of India for a meeting. The witness could not say whether his office was notified of the invitation for the Dakar trip by the mayor. On that trip, the mayor went with Isatou Faal, Nourideen Adams, Kibilly Sengula, and Yusupha Sanneh.
“I have not approved it,” he said.
The witness said the travel was not addressed to him, and he did not approve the trip of the mayor and the team to Senegal.
“Was the approval proper?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“It is proper because the head of the institution is travelling,” the witness replied.
“Who is the head of the institution?” Gomez asked.
“The mayor,” the witness answered.
“Who is the chief accounting officer?” Gomez asked.
“Myself, the CEO,” the witness answered.
The witness changed his statement and stated that he was aware of the voucher and that he had signed it. At this point, he was given another voucher, and he stated that he did not sign it.
“Is that proper?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“No,” the witness answered.
