Jaja Cham, former acting CEO of KMC
By Fatou Sillah
Jaja Cham, the former acting CEO of the Kanifing Municipal Council, testified before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry regarding the maintenance costs of two bulldozers, amounting to over one million dalasis.
The maintenance was carried out by Kan Mustapha Kanjura Kanyi. During his testimony, Cham was asked about the repair process for the D8 and D9 bulldozers. He clarified that while the bulldozers did not belong to the council, they were essential for its operations.
Cham explained that the D9 bulldozer had been submerged in water for a period, which led to corrosion, making it non-operational. The D8 bulldozer, on the other hand, had initially been operational but eventually ceased working due to overuse and developing complications. He stated that the council’s mechanics had assessed the situation and recommended servicing the machines to prevent further damage.
Cham went on to explain that he had instructed the procurement unit to seek quotations from companies for the required repairs. When asked whether this instruction was written, he confirmed that it was not. Lead Counsel Gomez inquired whether the Contracts Committee had been involved in the process. Cham responded that the instruction was simply to determine from the mechanics what parts were needed and how much they would cost to keep the bulldozers operational. He added that the procurement unit had obtained quotations, which were below the required threshold for committee approval.
“Any amount below D500,000 should not go to the Contracts Committee. Any amount above D500,000 should be tendered, and this is when the Contracts Committee is involved,” he said.
He stated that the maintenance bill for the D9 bulldozer was under D500,000 and mentioned that the hiring cost for a bulldozer was D45,000.
“The procurement requested for quotations, and when it came to our level, we approved it,” he said.
The lead counsel questioned the witness about the amount spent, but the witness replied that he couldn’t recall.
The witness was then given a KMC payment voucher and asked to review it. He identified it as the voucher for a D8 bulldozer, amounting to D491,276. When asked about other quotations received, he noted that they were not in the file. Upon further questioning about the absence of these quotations, he responded that he was unaware of their status.
“Does the CEO have the right or the powers to sanction payments of D500,000 without subjecting it to the Contracts Committee?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.The witness testified that procurement guidelines mandate any payment exceeding D500,000 to go through a tender process involving the Contracts Committee. Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez presented the Financial Manual to the witness, directing him to Section 608, which details the procedure for requesting quotations.
The lead counsel then inquired if the witness had requested a quotation, to which the witness confirmed. The lead counsel followed up by asking for evidence regarding the quotation request.
“Where is the evidence of the request?” He askedThe witness stated that he did not handle it personally; rather, it was the Procurement Manager who took charge. He added that he couldn’t confirm whether the required minimum of three quotations had been requested, citing it as an oversight on his part.
He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to verify the presence of three quotations before approving the payment.
“Now you have seen that procedure was not followed,” Counsel Gomez said. The witness responded by saying that is correct.The witness testified that Nkoland secured the contract, though he was unaware of the criteria used in the selection process. He explained that he trusted the procurement office to ensure value for money and to award the contract to a capable company.
Lead Counsel Gomez questioned him, saying, “You were the CEO at the time and the head of the procuring organisation. You are the chief accounting officer at the time. You have an obligation to make sure things are done in the right way, to make sure all procedures and procurement regulations are followed.” The witness agreed.
“Where procedures are not followed, and you sanctioned the payment, who would be at fault?” Counsel Gomez asked
The witness stated that he is uncertain about who would be at fault. Lead Counsel Gomez directed the witness’s attention to section 202 of the Financial Manual for Local Government Councils, which outlines the responsibilities of the CEO.
“The law says you will be personally responsible. Do you see that?” Counsel Gomez asked. The witness said yes.The witness testified that he was indirectly responsible. Lead Counsel Gomez informed the witness that he had authorized a payment exceeding one million dalasis to Kanjura Kanyi for repairing bulldozers. However, the witness clarified that this amount covered multiple transactions. Lead Counsel Gomez challenged this, noting that Kanjura Kanyi had only made one trip to Senegal, with a single transfer to Nkoland. According to the payment voucher, the transportation cost for bulldozers D8 and D9 was D122,500.
The witness received a payment voucher dated July 18, 2019, detailing the cost of spare parts for the repairs of bulldozers D8 and D9. He acknowledged that the transaction was specifically for these repairs, with transportation handled together, and the funds transferred to Nkoland on the same day.
When questioned about why Nkoland received both the initial and subsequent contracts for the repairs, the witness stated he was unaware, suggesting the procurement unit might provide an answer. He noted that he had been in the United States at the time and thus did not have knowledge of the decision.