Africa-Press – Gambia. Recent disclosures before the National Assembly’s Finance and Public Accounts Committee (FPAC) have renewed public debate over the controversial sale of Mega Bank with lawmakers and stakeholders raising questions about transparency, valuation, and accountability in the transaction.
The issue has drawn attention from the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), Ousainu Darboe, as well as economists Lare Sisay and Lamin Manneh, who have previously expressed concerns regarding the handling of the sale.
According to testimony presented to FPAC, the Governor of the Central Bank of The Gambia (CBG), confirmed that Mega Bank was sold to KM Holdings for US$15.25 million. Prior to the sale, the government reportedly injected D650 million in public funds to address the bank’s toxic assets, mainly non-performing loans.
The disclosures have prompted questions from observers and lawmakers regarding whether the transaction represented value for money and whether the sale served the best interests of the country.
The 2023 Auditor General’s Report also highlighted an outstanding balance of D24,442,558.89 related to the transaction and recommended proper disclosure supported by adequate documentation.
In response, the CBG Governor told the committee that the amount was linked to consultancy fees paid to DT Associates and transferred through Guaranty Trust Bank. However, auditors informed FPAC that earlier documentation provided by the Central Bank was unclear and incomplete, complicating verification efforts.
Analysts say the involvement of significant public funds heightens the need for transparency and clear reporting. Figures presented during the hearings include D650 million injected by the government to stabilise the bank, D60 million reportedly transferred back to government, and D20 million currently held in an account on behalf of the state, alongside the agreed sale price of US$15.25 million.
Observers have raised questions about whether the valuation process was independently conducted, whether a competitive bidding process was followed, and whether consultancy arrangements were properly procured and justified.
Calls have been made for authorities to provide detailed disclosure on the valuation methodology, consultancy contracts and payments, recovery of toxic assets, and measures taken to safeguard taxpayer funds.
Officials have yet to provide a comprehensive public response addressing all the concerns raised during the parliamentary committee proceedings.
The debate underscores broader issues of public financial management and accountability, with stakeholders emphasising that transactions involving public funds require clear transparency to maintain public confidence.
