Africa-Press – Gambia. Mayor Rohey Malick Lowe of Banjul City Council (BCC) testified on Thursday before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry regarding a series of payment vouchers raised in her name by Fatou Mbenga, the Council’s Deputy Public Relations Officer.
One such voucher involved a D5,000 payment reportedly requested by Mbenga on behalf of the Mayor to support a woman and her family. When asked who determined the amount, Mayor Lowe explained that she had received a request from the woman and subsequently consulted with the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of BCC. She said the final amount was agreed upon after discussions with the CEO, whom she described as providing advisory input.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez interjected, emphasizing that advice from the CEO is not binding and noted that the former CEO, Mustapha Batchilly, acted as a “rubber stamp.” He further questioned the Mayor on whether there had been instances where the CEO rejected her requests. Mayor Lowe responded that more of her vouchers were rejected than approved, although she acknowledged that she did not document these interactions.
Another payment of D15,000, raised by Mbenga on behalf of the Mayor, was for the rental of chairs and related items. When asked how the figure was determined, Mayor Lowe admitted she was unaware of the actual rental costs, but took responsibility for the voucher being raised in her name.
“How did you arrive at the amount?” Gomez asked.
The Mayor stated that she is not aware of the rental costs for chairs and related items. However, she acknowledged that her name was used in the transactions and affirmed that she takes full responsibility for that.
A third notable voucher involved a request to cater for a dinner in honor of the visiting Mayor of Ostend, Belgium. The budget breakdown included three sheep, beverages, payments to a chef, a DJ, Kora performers, and the purchase of cultural gifts including a Kora and drums. Mayor Lowe stated the budget was developed in collaboration with officials from the Ostend-BCC partnership project and acknowledged that Fatou Mbenga frequently made such requests in her name—unaware at the time that this practice contravened financial regulations.
Lead Counsel Gomez emphasized that the justification was inadequate, stating that only designated officers are authorized to initiate and process payments. “The Mayor cannot function as a paying-out cashier,” Gomez asserted.
In response, Mayor Lowe argued that her involvement in specific payment instructions did not equate to assuming the role of a cashier. “Lead Counsel; you cannot generalize this. The mistake we made in the case of payments to Fatou Mbenga does not mean the Mayor is a paying-out cashier,” the witness said.
However, Gomez reiterated that both the payments to Mbenga and the Mayor’s directives were procedurally flawed and misclassified under the imprest system.
Mayor Lowe defended the payments as “imprest” funds—typically used for urgent, small-scale expenditures stating: “We thought that it was an imprest.”
But Gomez challenged that classification. He pointed out that events like the Ostend mayor’s visit were planned and not emergencies, and therefore did not qualify under imprest guidelines. When pressed, Mayor Lowe conceded that their usage of the term “imprest” may have been a misapplication, adding that the Council still uses the term broadly for all such payments.
Gomez presented Section 305 of the Government Financial Manual to the Mayor, outlining the authority of the CEO, the Mayor, and the Council in authorizing expenditures, and specifying categories such as salaries, procurement, and office expenses. He also highlighted the procedures for petty cash and imprest systems, noting that proper classification and authorization are required by law.
“Where does the fault lie? Is it due to ignorance? Where exactly does the problem lie?” the Lead Counsel asked.
In response, the Mayor stated that the issue stemmed from the choice of words, explaining that all payments were generally categorized as imprest. She added that this practice is still ongoing. The Lead Counsel then handed her the Financial Manual and directed her to read Section 305, which outlines the authority for expenditure.
“This is telling you that the CEO has the power to authorise expenditure, the Mayor or Chairperson has the authority has the power to authorise expenditure and the Council also has the authority to authorise expenditure, The council has the responsibility of coming up with threshold for the CEO and the Mayor,” Lead counsel said.
Gomez went on to outline the categories of payments authorized by law, which include salaries, wages, purchases and supplies, office expenses, and others, along with the prescribed procedures for processing such payments. He also referenced legal provisions governing petty cash disbursements and the operation of the cash imprest system.
Among other contested vouchers was a D250,000 request for the National Youth Conference and Festival (NAYConf), D50,000 of which was allocated for water and refreshments. The Mayor stated that the budget was prepared by the NAYConf organizers but was unsure whether it had been incorporated into the Council’s approved budget.
“How do you decide as a council how much should be paid?” the lead counsel inquired.
In response, the witness explained that the amounts are typically included in the budget. However, she added that she was unsure whether the expenditure for NAYConf had been part of that budget. She emphasized that the budget is usually prepared by the event organizers.
In another instance, a D40,000 payment was requested by Mbenga on May 9, 2022, for a Quranic recitation led by Imam Bai Essa Ngom. Mayor Lowe said the funds were used to compensate participating imams. Lead Counsel Gomez pointed out that such payments should not have been routed through her, to which the Mayor agreed.
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
