Africa-Press – Gambia. Muhammed Cham, the Finance Manager for the Banjul City Council’s EU-funded project, appeared before the local government commission of inquiry, where he was questioned regarding several financial transactions made in his name.
Cham, who has held the position since October 25, 2021, and is currently on administrative leave, admitted during his testimony that a total of 337,000 was withdrawn in his name between May and September 2021. However, Cham explained that proper reconciliation of these transactions could not be completed due to the overwhelming responsibilities associated with his role on the project.
He acknowledged that upon reviewing the audit report, he realized that some of the payments made in his name were for salaries, personal allowances, and pensions. Nonetheless, Cham stated that he could not reconcile these transactions, citing the substantial workload he had managing the EU project.
Commission member Gomez challenged Cham’s explanation, pointing out that, since Cham was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the project, he should have made the necessary effort to handle such financial matters. Cham countered that he was indeed involved in daily financial transactions for the project, though Gomez disputed this claim, asserting that it was not true.
Cham further stated that most of the payments made in his name were for official transactions, but Gomez demanded evidence in the form of documentation to support this assertion.
The witness testified that the BCC “mostly operates on overdrafts.” He submitted seven vouchers, all of which were accepted as evidence.
He stated that he was in charge of the project’s finances and served as a signatory on the project’s account. While the finance director represented the BCC, the witness represented the project. He explained that he was made a signatory after the finance director, Momodou Camara, declined to sign cheques. As a result, he was authorized to sign them in Camara’s place.
When asked why Camara refused to sign, the witness said he didn’t know, adding that although Camara was his superior, no explanation was given.
He further noted that senior project figures—including the project manager, the Mayor, former CEO Mustapha Batchilly, finance director Momodou Camara, and himself—held a meeting at the Mayor’s town hall to discuss the budget, which amounted to approximately nine hundred thousand dalasis.“It was imposed on us,” the witness said.
The witness testified that the town hall was not included in the original budget. He stated that the budget was reduced to 900,000 dalasi and was prepared by the Office of the Mayor, with the intention of paying SAB Multimedia. He explained that there was disagreement during the meeting, which ended without consensus. The plan was to allocate funds from the Visibility Budget line, but afterward, he observed that “people were avoiding responsibility.”
He further noted that the Director of Finance was subsequently removed from the Steering Committee, and he himself was later added as a signatory alongside the CEO.“You were added to be relevant and be signing cheques,” Gomez said.
The witness acknowledged the point and stated that when he was appointed as a signatory, Camara was removed from that role.
“You were brought in to do a job he was not willing to do,” Gomez remarked.
“That may be the case,” the witness responded.
He explained that there had been a “fallout,” which led to his designation as a signatory.
However, he admitted he never asked Camara why he declined to sign, nor did he question his supervisor about it.
The witness also revealed that procurement procedures were not followed in every case—only in “most” transactions.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez presented transaction records indicating that the witness had received multiple impress and petty cash disbursements. The witness was then asked to account for these funds.
The Commission requested that the witness provide receipts for the petty cash expenditures. In response, the witness stated that he had benefited from a project loan of at least D200,000, which he claimed to have fully repaid. He also mentioned that employees used to receive Christmas and Tobaski bonuses, a practice allegedly suggested by the EU project coordinator. A total of D496,000 was reportedly spent on these bonuses, and the witness was asked to submit documentation showing EU approval for this expenditure.
Furthermore, the witness disclosed that the Mayor received a “Management Designation Allowance” of D20,000, while the Deputy Mayor received D15,000, the Director of Finance D10,000, and the CEO D15,000. Additionally, he confirmed that D233,000 was paid to a company for software, and he personally signed off on the final 20% payment amounting to D46,600.
“Was the software delivered?” Gomez inquired.
“No, it wasn’t,” the witness responded.
He clarified that while the software had been “presented,” it was never actually delivered. According to the witness, during development, a shift in the reporting format made the software unnecessary. Despite that, the full payment was made to the company.
“Why was the full amount paid?” Gomez asked.
The witness explained that the project manager had informed him the developer had completed the work, and payment was required. He acknowledged that the final 20% should not have been released without actual delivery of the product.
“The software should have been delivered before payment,” the witness said.“You were brought as a rubber-stamp. You are an easy guy and they will get you to sign everything they bring to you,” Gomez said.
“You are much easier than Momodou Camara. You were a rubber-stamp. You allow all payments to pass,” Gomez added.
The witness said he disagreed
“You are a rubber-stamp. That is the truth. That is the fact,” Gomez told the witness.Gomez stated that the contractors who gave testimony, along with the individuals working on the project, acknowledged the violations. Some of them even revealed that they didn’t have contracts in place.
“You helped them get their cheques signed,” Gomez said.
The witness remained silent and did not challenge these claims.
He stated that he typically prepares the financial reports for the project on a monthly basis and was asked to submit all relevant reports.
He testified that the project operates two accounts—BSIC (dalasi account) and two accounts at Eco Bank, one in Euros and the other in Dalasi. The witness requested more time from the Commission to retrieve the necessary documents from Crab Island in Banjul to support the petty cash and other details, as he had been unable to locate them. He was granted an extension to submit the documents by the following Tuesday.
When asked about the procurement process for the Banjul-Ostend project, the witness explained that the contracts committee of the Banjul City Council handled procurement matters, with the procurement officer also involved.
He mentioned having a list of procurement activities but noted that the documents were still at Crab Island. He was instructed to provide the necessary documents.
Additionally, the witness presented two letters from the Banjul City Council to BSIC and Eco Bank, authorizing him as a signatory for the accounts. Both letters were accepted as evidence and marked as exhibits.
The witness was asked if they maintained an impress ledger, to which they replied no. Instead, they mentioned having a system called DBE, which allowed them to monitor the impress issued to individuals. They also explained that the people who received impress were required to return it so that the spending of the funds could be verified. The Commission then asked for the retirement records, and Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez began referencing the Financial Manual for Local Government Councils, outlining the procedures and requirements for issuing impress. As Gomez read the provisions, the witness admitted that these procedures were not being followed.
The witness further clarified that when they became a signatory to the accounts, the former director of finance, Momodou Camara, was still a signatory. The witness explained that they were only required to sign if Camara was unavailable. Gomez pointed out that Camara was available but was choosing not to sign until certain issues were regularized. The witness did not disagree with this statement.
“It is not your business whether he signed or not,” Gomez said.
The witness concurred with Gomez’s statement that the finance director, rather than himself, should have been the one to sign the cheque. He also acknowledged that he was subordinate to Camara.
The witness was informed that he had no authority to sign a cheque when the finance director had already made it clear that they would not be signing it.“You came in as number 2,” Gomez said, adding that “You did not question, even for once, why you should be signing cheques when the director of finance was present.”
“Yes,” the witness answered.
The witness was questioned about the fuel log and explained that recipients were required to sign a form. The Commission then requested documents that would verify fuel distribution from 2021 onwards.
The witness served as the acting Director of Finance from July 2018 until 2020, when Camara was appointed to the position.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez presented the witness with audit reports, and the witness was asked about two payments: D1,767,820 and D185,000, which were made to the Director of Planning for the construction of the abattoir. In response, the witness stated that there was a retirement, and claimed that BCC had overpaid UCL by D675,000. However, the witness disagreed with the assertion of overpayment.
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
