Jammeh’s Assets Probe Before National Assembly Committee
By Kebba AF Touray
The Registrar of Companies, Ms. Marie Therese Gomez, during her appearance before the Select Committee on the sale and disposal of assets identified by the Janneh Commission as properties of ex-President Jammeh, denied having seen the application that placed Jammeh’s companies under the receivership of Augustus Prom firm. She made the denial on Tuesday, 26th August 2025, at the Assembly, in the committee’s ongoing inquiry into the former President’s assets.
Among her roles, Ms. Gomez is the custodian of all records coming to the office. She was asked whether she was aware of the 2018 suit instituted against ex-President Jammeh at the High Court by the former Attorney General, and she said, “Yes.” She was also asked whether she was aware of the commission of inquiry instituted by the government in 2017 to investigate the financial dealings of ex-president Jammeh and close associates, and she replied in the positive.
“Is your office aware prior to instituting the commission, the Attorney General had planned to filed a suit at the High Court to obtain a freezing order and custodial orders in relation to properties and assets of the former President?” Lead Counsel Aji Saine Kah asked. She replied in affirmative saying, “Very well.”
She was then referred to a document marked MOJ 5A, and was asked to peruse annexure 3 relating to the list of the 14 companies identified as properties of ex-President Jammeh. Kah asked, “Did your office prepare that list?” She replied, “I have is only 11 companies.”
At this stage, she was given the second page of annexure 3 for perusal, and after perusal, Kah put it to her that it was 14 companies that the Attorney General included in his application at the High Court to place the companies under receivership and under the control of Augustus Prom. She said, “I may not be in position to tell, because at the time I was merely a State Counsel and I have no dealings with anything related to the Janneh Commission. I may not refute that it is from the office.”
Counsel Kah pressed further, “Did your office prepare that list?” She said, “Well, these are companies… entities that I believe are registered, and are some of the companies highlighted in the summons to produce documents.” She insisted that she could not tell if the list is from the Registry, adding that the list does not have a letterhead, to show that it emanates from the office of the registry. She maintained, “Well, it may appear to be but I cannot tell.”
Kah asked her to explain to the committee how she became aware of the processes. She explained that at the time, she was a state counsel attached to the Department of Civil Litigation and International Law, but albeit she was a counsel and was away on maternity leave, she was at the Ministry at the time.
Counsel Kah asked, “Prior to this date, did you ever see a copy of MOJ 5A?” She admitted, “Yes, not long ago,” but then when the Ministry was summoned “by this committee” to produce some documents, she “was part of the team that gathering those documents.” Kah asked, “Was that the first time you saw the document?” She said, “Well, I can’t remember.”
At this stage, she was also asked to peruse through paragraphs 8 and 9 of the document relating to the High Court’s appointment of Mr. Prom as receiver of the 14 companies. She was then asked by Counsel Kah, “After Mr. Prom’s appointment by the High Court on the 22nd May 2017, did your office have any communication or communication with the receiver with regards to these 14 companies?”
She explained that she has submitted some additional documents to the committee, which during the thorough search she has retrieved some documents containing communications from Mr. Augustus Prom. From most of the said documents, show that the Office of the Registry received a letter from the firm, but not indicative of any reply from the office. She said, “Actually, from my search I did not see any reply letter to the letters from the Augustus Prom.”
Kah asked her, “State if it is normal that her office would receive letter from offices and would not respond to those letter.” She said, “The archives where they keep their manual records, some are in the archives but the archives are under renovation for five years or so.”
Counsel Kah inquired from her whether that would connote that there are some relevant records in the archives that the committee would not be able to get. She said, “Yes. The archives are in a bad condition at the moment.”
