By Makutu Manneh
Modou Jonga, a former Chief Executive Officer of the Brikama Area Council, Tuesday admitted that Thirty-Three Million Dalasi paid by the Accountant General to his council’s bank account, was unlawfully spent by his office.
The evidence before the Commission is that Thirty-Three Million, Seven Hundred and Thirteen Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy-Six Dalasi, One Butut (D33,713,176.01) was received by the Brikama Area Council between May 2020 and June 2023. The money was supposed to be spent on the 14 communities where mining activities are taking place in the Brikama Administrative Areas.
Ex-CEO Modou Jonga said the Council was using the money to pay their debts in the banks, pay salaries, and other council activities. The communities were deprived of the funds.
He appeared on Tuesday, 13 August 2024 before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry. Jonga was the Chief Executive Officer of the Brikama Area Council from November 2021 to February 2024.
The Lead Counsel began questioning him about Geology Funds. The Funds were sent from the Accountant General’s Office to the Brikama Area Council. Jonga confirmed that the Government used to make the payments in the bank accounts of the Brikama Area Council.
He testified that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on 29 January 2019 between the Brikama Area Council and the Government regarding the management and disbursement of the funds.
The MoU indicated that 50% of the funds from the mining sites should go to the Ministry of Finance, 20% to the Department of Geology, and 20% to the Brikama Area Council.
The MoU was tendered at this point and admitted in evidence. It was dated 11 January 2019. It was signed by the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Local Government. It was also signed by the Executive Director of the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Brikama Area Council. The Minister of Finance endorsed it.
The witness said the funds were for the communities affected by mining. Communities affected by mining here mean the villages where mining is taking place.
Jonga admitted that there is no special account for the Geology Funds. He testified that the first two disbursements from the Government were paid in the Council’s Eco Bank Account. He said he wrote a letter to the Ministry of Local Government requesting approval for a particular existing account in Vista Bank to be designated for the Geology Funds. He stressed that only two of the payments were received through Eco Bank while the rest of the payments were received through Vista Bank.
The Commission noted that the Brikama Area Council received over D33.7 million between May 2020 and June 2023 as Geology Funds.
“How were you spending the money? Was it by the MoU?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“Honestly, we were not spending the money in accordance with the MoU,” the witness said.
“Why is that?” Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness was silent for a moment and the question was repeated. At this point, he began narrating what happened to the funds.
Modou Jonga said the first payment received was D7.8 million from which they used D7 million as a fixed deposit at Eco Bank. He claimed that the reason was to ensure the proper management of the funds. He added that the intention was to keep the funds for the appropriate spending. In that regard, they used the D7 million as collateral to access overdrafts and loans from the bank. The Commission requested the witness to provide the loan and overdraft agreements with the bank and any other bank.
The witness said the balance of over D800,000 was spent on footing council expenses. He requested time to provide documents to account for it. It was granted.
The second disbursement was over D4.7 million received through Eco Bank.
The witness said that the amount of D1,051,000 was paid to the Kartong Ward Development Account in August 2021 after they sent a proposal for a project. The Commission requested him to provide the proposal for the transfer. The witness said D767,320 was paid to Pirang Ward and D2,000,000 was paid to Gunjur Ward (D1.5 was paid in August 2021 and D500,000 in December 2021).
When asked how much was spent on the mining communities, the witness could not tell the amount spent on communities affected. He testified that the monies should have been spent on communities affected in line with the MoU.
He was given the Eco Bank statement of account for the Brikama Area Council. He was asked to explain what happened to the over D4.7 million disbursed to the council by the government.
“I did not see the record of the D4.7 in the (soft copy) of the account statement,” the witness said.
Counsel Gomez asked him to look for it in the hard copy presented by the Eco Bank. After checking, he said he did not see it.
“Where is the D4.7 million you were explaining? You have already explained how the money was distributed?” Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness could not provide an answer after repeated questions from the Lead Counsel. The Chairperson Jainaba Bah intervened and asked the witness to check the Vista Bank statement of account. He was provided the account statement and he was able to trace the transfer.
Contrary to his narration about how the funds were spent, the statement of the account showed a series of withdrawals made by the Council after the D4.7 million was received.
“If you cannot justify the withdrawals from the Geology Funds, you and the director of finance will be responsible for the funds,” Gomez said.
The witness agreed. Gomez told the witness that the withdrawals were not justificatied for the spending the witness narrated earlier. The witness agreed. In simple terms, the witness was caught in a process of trying to give reasons that were contrary to what the evidence provided.
Counsel Gomez said the D4.7 million received should have been spent on communities affected. The witness confirmed that the funds were not spent on the affected communities.
The witness said they paid salaries from the Geology Fund. He added that it was wrong to make payment of salaries from the Geology Funds because the purpose was for the money to be spent on the mining communities.
The Commission noted that the Council’s account was already red in September 2021 with a negative balance of D1.3 million. This means that a substantial amount of the fund was used to pay the loan they took from the bank while the rest was withdrawn and spent.
“Why was it difficult to do as agreed in the MoU,” Gomez asked.
The witness admitted that the spending was unlawful.
“I take full responsibility for the poor management of the Geology Funds,” Jonga said.
Another Geology Fund disbursement was received on 12 October 2021. The amount was over D1.3 as captured in the Vista Bank statement of account for the BAC.
“The fund was not spent on the communities. After the receipt, there were a series of payments made from that account,” Jonga said.
At the time of receipt of the money, the account was in the negative and more than 90% of the fund was used to pay the Council’s loan to the bank. The witness said after receiving the Fund, which cleared the negative balance, the Council took another overdraft facility from the bank.
The Commission noted that the account had a negative balance of D1,430,067.07. After the money was received, the account was still in negative balance of D38,000.
“Why will you use this money to offset your liabilities?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“It only points to the poor management of the accounts and the funds. I take full responsibility,” the witness answered.
The witness accepted liability for the problems.
Another D4,169,708.79 million was received as Geology Funds. The witness said the monies were not spent on the affected areas. The witness testified that it was wrong to spend the Funds without ensuring that the mining communities benefit from it. The witness admitted that the money was used to offset the bank liabilities of the Council.
“It was unlawful. The money was not spent on the purpose it was given to us,” the witness said.
“The idea as to how you were supposed to spend was clear as indicated in the MoU,” Counsel Gomez said.
“Yes, it was supposed to go to the mining communities. The spending we made was all unlawful,” the witness answered.
On 29 March 2022, over D3 million was received as Geology Funds. The witness said the Funds were not spent on the affected communities.
On 17 October 2022, the Brikama Area Council received over D4.3 as Geology Funds. At this time, the Council had a negative balance in its account. The money was used to clear their liability. They had a negative balance of over
D4.2. After the payment was received, they were only left with D115,518.
When asked what happened to the money, Jonga said the money did not reach the affected communities. He stated the amount was used to settle the negative balance of the Council.
On 27 October 2022, over D5.1 million was received as Geology Funds. The questions and answers were given.
“I can confirm that most of the Geology Funds were not used for the intended purpose,” the witness said.
The witness testified that he has the ultimate responsibility of authorising the payment. He explained the procedure or administrative checks in place before payment or withdrawal is made. Jonga said the CEO cannot approve payments, irrespective of the amount.
“Do you have absolute control over expenditures?” Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez asked.
“Yes,” Modou Jonga said.
He was asked for the payments made to Mustapha Manneh, Lamin Kanyi, and Lalo Kanyi. The witness said it was for the hire of trucks for transportation.
He will reappear on Wednesday, 14 August 2024.
Earlier, Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez provided the witness with some documents to identify. Modou Jonga said they were files containing Development Committee meeting minutes, contracts committee meeting minutes, the monthly GPPA reports from 2021 to 2023, a file containing the strategic plan and rules of procedures, the file containing the procurement plan from 2021 to 2023, Asset register, Establishment register, Finance committee minutes, Licence file, Establishment Committee register, budget for 2018 to 2022 and Rules of procedure.
All the documents and files were tendered and admitted in evidence.
The witness was handed three vouchers dated 29 December 2020, 31 December 2020 and February 2021. He said they were vouchers from the Brikama Area Council. The witness was given more vouchers to identify. He was handed other vouchers to identify bringing the total to 44 vouchers. They were all admitted in evidence.
