Brikama Area Council paid over One Million Dalasi for one trip to Dakar in 2021. The payment was susceptible to fraud after revelations before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry showed a ‘mysterious’ transaction.
*Modou Jonga, a former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Brikama Area*, was questioned about the mysterious transaction. He signed on both vouchers and authorised two payments to be made for one trip.
He appeared before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry on Monday, 12 August 2024.
The Commission is established to investigate the financial and administrative operations of local government councils to enhance transparency and accountability.
Ex-CEO Jonga was handed two vouchers dated 13 October 2021 and 31 January 2021. The Lead Counsel asked him to provide an explanation.
The first one discussed was the one dated 31 January 2021.
“Who authorised this payment?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness was silent.
“Did you sign it?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“Yes,” the witness answered.
“Mr Jonga, who authorised the payment?” Gomez asked, adding that “Don’t start to act smart by trying to anticipate the questions I am coming to ask. Simply answer the question.”
“I authorised it,” Jonga said as he continued to focus on the voucher reading.
A similar line of questions was repeated for the other voucher dated 13 October 2021. The witness admitted that he signed on both vouchers to authorise those payments. Both vouchers were tendered and admitted in evidence.
The voucher for January 2021 was for an official trip to Grand Yoff, Dakar, Senegal from the 16 to 20 January 2021.
“Was there an invitation?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“No,” the CEO answered.
He later claimed that there was an invitation and promised to produce it. He explained that the trip to Dakar included staff and councillors.
The amount paid was D607,650 for the first voucher in January 2021. It was the same month they embarked on the trip. The voucher was signed by the accounts clerk, the principal auditor signed it, the director of finance signed, the CEO sign, and all other authorities. The only signature missing was that of the paying-out cashier, who did not sign.
The second voucher was for the payment of the same trip. It was from 16 to 20 January 2021. The amount was D630,720 for the same trip. However, it was 10 months later. This came after the payment was done. This makes the second voucher a ‘mysterious’ payment. The second voucher has a higher amount than the first voucher, and there was no list of recipients. The accounts clerk it, internal auditor, CEO, and the director of finance signed it. The paying-out cashier did not sign it. This one has the invitation.
“Why did you prepare two payment vouchers for the same trip?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“It is clearly very, very wrong. I cannot explain why two payment vouchers were raised,” Jonga said.
The Commission noted that the payment was done in January, and in October of the same year, a voucher was raised for the same trip. The Commission noted that payment was made in January 2021 for the Dakar trip, and in October 2021, another payment was made for the same trip.
“I don’t know what explanation to give here. I cannot provide an explanation,” the witness said.
The witness requested time to consult the director of finance about the two payments.
“What are you going to ask him? Everything you need is here before you. The vouchers are here, and all the details are here. You authorised both payments,” Counsel Gomez told the witness.
The witness agreed that all the details were there, but he needed to confirm with the accounts unit. He testified that the payment was unlawful.
Jonga confirmed that the second voucher did not have the names of the recipients.
“There is evidence that the monies have been paid. It is before you, and you can see. Everything is before you. There was payment, but there are no recipients. You make payment, but there is no recipient. This is an issue of suspected fraud. Is that not a reasonable conclusion?” Gomez asked the witness.
“It is a reasonable conclusion. I don’t know how this happened,” the witness answered.
The witness requested time to consult with the director of finance about the two payments.
Commissioner Oreme E. Joiner told the witness that the event (Dakar Trip) was in January 2021, and payment was already done. He said a second request for the same payment was made in October, about 10 months later.
“Shouldn’t that raise a red flag that something is wrong here?” Commissioner Joiner asked.
“Yes, I agree,” the witness answered.
The Commission granted ex-CEO Jonga the chance to consult with the director of finance about the two payments.
The witness said the claims of the Finance Director and the Principal Cashier that their cash books were missing were not true.
“Until the time of my leaving in February 2024, the cash books were there. There was no complaint or report sent to me about the missing cash books,” the ex-CEO said.
He was asked about the issue of withholding tax. The law requires the Council to withhold tax as per the Value Added Tax Act. The withholding tax should be 10% of Council payments for contracts.
“We have not withheld tax. We take full responsibility for this,” the witness answered.
He was told that withholding tax is not optional but mandatory. He agreed and admitted that they failed to adhere to the law.
He was asked why there were no bank reconciliation and financial statements. The witness claimed that there was bank reconciliation done. He asked for time to produce them. Finance Director Alagie Jeng had previously testified that he does not do bank reconciliation, and the audit findings were that there were no reconciliations done. Ex-CEO Jonga claimed that there were bank reconciliations. His request was granted by the Commission.
The auditors observed that there were incomplete works with respect to the road projects of Brikama Area Council. This included the Box Bar Road Lot 2. The witness said attributed all the delay to delay in procuring of materials by the contractor.
In some instances, the witness said the Contracts Committee of the BAC had accepted to extend the contracts based on the reasons put up by the contractors. When asked if the Box Bar Road completed, the witness said the contractor until now could not fulfil the contractual obligation, and the road is still not complete. The witness said the BAC paid D1.7 million out of D3 million to the contract. He was asked for the status report and related documents for the project. He asked for time to find out.
On the borehole project in Foni for the two communities, the witness said the contract was for the drilling of the borehole and its accessories. He testified that the trench drilling was not part of the contract, and it was not an obligation on the contractor to drill the trench. He said the community was supposed to drill the trench even though the contract was silent about it. He stated that there was a delay in the community to mobilise themselves for the work. Commissioner Alagie Sillah told the witness that the claim that the community was responsible for drilling the trench should have been captured in the contract description. The witness agreed and stated that there was a gap in that respect.
Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness that the drilling of the trench was central in the project, and the witness agreed. He was asked why it was not part of the contract, and the witness said it was not part of the contract. Jonga referred to it as a lapse. The witness said that despite paying the contractor, the Council used its plumbers in the Planning Unit to complete the work. He maintained that the contractor defaulted. The witness was asked about so many omissions in the contract, which included the lack of a termination clause. He admitted that the signed contract has a lot of gaps. The auditors said the Area Council paid the contractor over one million dalasi to the contractor. The witness said the Council did not pay the full amount. He added that the full amount was not paid. He could state the amount paid. He was asked to provide the amount paid to the contract and come up with the evidence. The witness claimed that the contract was later completed by the Council staff, but there is no certificate to show that. He said there was an. assessment done by the consultant Demba Jabbi from the Department of Water Resources. He was instructed to bring the assessment report for the borehole project in Foni.
The written statement of the witness dated 5 April 2024 and the additional statement dated 24 May 2024 were both tendered and admitted in evidence.
The Counsel proceeded to question the witness about the 2022 and 2023 System Audit Report covering from January 2022 to December 2023. The witness said the Council did not submit its report to the audit queries. He added that the Council was served with the draft audit report by the Internal Audit Unit, and it was their duty to respond to the audit queries. He explained that the principal auditor asked the council to wait for him in their response. According to Jonga, the principal auditor wanted to remove his name in one of the audit findings because the report was prepared by his subordinates. He was told the reason was weak, and he was asked whether there was a letter. He claimed that it was during one of their management meetings. He was told that the Principal Auditor cannot and should have stopped the Council from responding to the audit queries. Jonga agreed. He was referred to the audit report submitted by the principal auditor. The name of the Internal Auditor Sulayman Barry was maintained, and it does not have the response of the management. He was also referred to the testimony of Sulayman Barry, who claimed that the management of the Council chose not to respond to the audit queries.
Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness to respond to the audit queries. The witness said the audit report he tendered a previous day incorporated the management responses. Lead Counsel Gomez said the audit report should be signed by Sulayman Barry as the principal auditor since it was prepared by the Internal Auditor Unit. The report produced by Jonga was an unsigned copy.
The auditors discovered that former employees of the Council were paid salaries. The auditors said those people continued to receive their salaries and provided the list. The witness could not provide an answer. He requested time to find out.
The auditors found out that some council staff were paid transport allowance and allocated fuel at the same time. The auditors listed the names and the vehicle numbers of the people having both transport allowance and fuel at the same time. This included Sulayman Barry, the principal auditor. The witness claimed that some of those fuel allocations were meant for carrying out council works. He later admitted that it was the wrong thing to do. He testified that they were unlawful allocations.
The auditors noted that some junior staff were paid higher than their seniors. The witness confirmed the audit finding as true. He told the Commission that the issue was addressed in the 2024 budget.
The auditors uncovered that a total of 68 revenue collectors suppressed D883,950. The witness confirmed the audit finding as true. He said that before he left, he could not take steps to address it. He testified that the collectors were not confronted with the audit finding against them. He admitted that he did not take any action to recover the suppressed funds.
The auditors also raised the issue of vouchers without appropriate signatures. The auditors listed payment vouchers indicating their vouchers. They noted missing signatures. The witness agreed that there were missing signatures despite his initial claim that the auditors were not right.
The witness was handed a voucher dated 23 March 2020 for the payment of an amount of D65,259.90. The voucher was admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit.
Two vouchers were tendered and admitted in evidence. One of the vouchers was for a payment of D84,000 for hiring trucks for clearing Sinchu Baliya dumpsite dated 12 March 2020. The recipient did not sign the receipt of the money. The paying-out cashier did not sign the voucher. The person who made the claim, Mustapha Manneh, did not sign on his claim. The witness said the payment was not supposed to be authorised. He admitted that it was an unlawful payment.The other voucher was a payment of D186,000. Similar violations were raised, and the witness admitted to flouting the rules. He was reminded of the responsibilities of the Chief Executive Officer as provided in the Financial Manual for Local Government Councils. Jonga admitted that he was responsible for all those unlawful payments.
The witness provided the strategic plan and the strategic blueprint for the Brikama Area Council. Bith were both tendered and admitted in evidence.
The witness was given a file containing contract documents of the Brikama Area Council. The witness said the file contains contract documents of the Council. He added that five (5) of them were signed during his time as the CEO. The contracts file was tendered and admitted in evidence. It covers the period 2019 to 2023.
Meanwhile, the witness provided documents to the Commission. He provided the invitation letter for Sheriffo Sonko and Fa Saikou to attend the 10th Abu Dhabi World Urban forum the 8 to 12 February 2022, travel clearance and the report of the forum; the framework contract between the BAC and the GNPC for the fuel supply dated 29 March 2019; a letter from the CEO instructing to the Principal Internal Auditor to investigate the GTR Books and the investigative report; civil works contract with the National Roads Authority dated December 202 for an amount of D3 Million whereas D1.7 million was paid to Samjass as the contracts; Contract for the drilling of the 2 boreholes in Foni; Contract with Metrix; Investigation Report in the matter of the auction sale for January 2020; Auction Report for March 2022; Auction Report prepared by Lamin Suso; CRBR covering from 2016 to 2023; a CRBR covering 2018 only; and a few other documents. They were all copies. They were 14 documents in total.
He will reappear today.
