Youths In Defense Of The APRC

Open Letter to the Gambian Government and People: A Call for Accountability and Justice

To:

The President of the Republic of The Gambia

The Speaker of the National Assembly

The Attorney General

The Inspector General of Police

The Majority Leader of the National Assembly

The Minority Leader

Leaders of Political and Civil Societies

The Sovereign Citizens of The Gambia

Subject: Immediate Need for a Commission of Inquiry on A2 and A5 Oil Blocks and Accountability for Economic Crimes Against The Gambia

---

Dear Leaders and Citizens of The Gambia,

Recent evidence has uncovered alarming details of a coordinated conspiracy involving high-ranking officials and external parties, aimed at exploiting The Gambia’s resources and defrauding our nation of its rightful assets.

This pattern of neglect, complicity, and potential collusion in the management of oil blocks A2 and A5 reflects severe failures at the highest levels.

This betrayal by those entrusted with public office has left the Gambian people impoverished, compromising national security and welfare.

This letter is a call to action for immediate accountability, urging our leaders and institutions to prioritize the protection of The Gambia’s resources, especially in cases where the mismanagement of public assets has endangered our economic future.

We respectfully demand a transparent and comprehensive investigation through a Commission of Inquiry or Parliamentary Commission into the allegations of corruption and negligence surrounding the A2 and A5 oil blocks.

Constitutional Responsibilities and the Need for Accountability

1. The President of the Republic of The Gambia

The President, as the head of state and primary protector of Gambian resources, has a constitutional duty to act decisively to prevent exploitation and to uphold transparency in all matters of public interest.

Failure to address these issues undermines national integrity and constitutes a profound breach of trust.

2. The Speaker of the National Assembly

The Speaker, as the custodian of legislative power, has a duty to ensure that the National Assembly holds public officials accountable for any abuses related to national assets.

If the Assembly fails to investigate or respond to these allegations, it sets a dangerous precedent, eroding the Assembly’s authority and trust in government.

3. The Attorney General

The Attorney General is responsible for advising the government on legal matters and ensuring adherence to law. A failure to investigate and address serious allegations of economic crimes not only reflects negligence but could suggest complicity in activities detrimental to national interests. This lack of action leaves the Gambian people vulnerable to further exploitation.

4. The Inspector General of Police

As enforcer of the nation’s laws, the Inspector General must ensure thorough investigation into any allegations of corruption or misuse of power related to public resources.

Failing to act on credible allegations of corruption and economic exploitation represents a dereliction of duty and undermines the justice system.

5. The Majority and Minority Leaders of the National Assembly

Both leaders are responsible for representing the public’s interests, particularly in addressing issues that threaten national resources.

Failure to advocate for investigation and transparency in this matter fails the Gambian people and disregards their constitutional obligations.

6. ALL SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF THE GAMBKA
---

Call for an Investigation and Transparent Oversight

The Gambian people deserve full transparency on the handling of the A2 and A5 oil blocks and demand that those found responsible for abuse of office, corruption, or negligence are held accountable.

This includes investigating the involvement of corporate entities and individuals alleged to have profited at the expense of the nation’s resources and public trust. This inquiry must also review the actions, or inactions, of public officials in positions of trust.

The time for accountability is now.

We call upon The Gambia’s leadership, lawmakers, and legal authorities to act decisively, transparently, and swiftly. Only through rigorous inquiry and action can we ensure that justice prevails and prevent similar betrayals of the public trust.

Let us stand together, united in our commitment to safeguarding The Gambia’s future and securing a fairer, more just nation for all.

THIS IS A TIME OF NATIONAL URGENCY AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS MAY BE IGNORED BUT THE DILIGENCE AND PATRIOTISM OF COUNSEL O F MBAI MUST BE HEEDED ...

AND IT IS NOW OR NEVER FOR PATRIOTS TO STAND UP NOW OR FOREVER BE SILENT.

In Unity and Justice,
ABDUL HAQQ

Key Individuals and Entities Cited - Potential Liability Analysis

1. Corporate Entities

FAR Ltd. and Subsidiaries
Potential Liability:
- Misrepresentation of drilling results and data
- Breach of contractual obligations regarding data sharing
- Potential fraud regarding well locations and reservoir connectivity
- Breach of regulatory requirements
- Non-compliance with verification procedures

Key Actions:
- Denied officials access to crucial verification points
- Withheld drilling data
- Designated Bambo well as 'tight hole' restricting disclosure
- Made potentially false claims about SNE Sangomar field extension
- Potentially misrepresented $100 million investment claim

2. Key Corporate Officials

i. Cath Norman (FAR Ltd. Senior Management)
Potential Liability:
- Corporate liability for misrepresentation
- Personal liability for regulatory breaches
- Responsibility for corporate governance failures

Key Actions:
- Developed relationships with Senegalese officials
- Negotiated $126 million payment from Woodside Energy

ii. Rolf Stork (FAR Ltd. Representative in Gambia)
Potential Liability:
- Corporate representation in questionable transactions
- Potential complicity in regulatory breaches
- Facilitation of improper relationships

Key Actions:
- Coordinated with Ministry and Petroleum Commission
- Negotiated license extension
- Facilitated exit without penalties

3. Government Officials

i. Fafa Sanyang (Former Minister of Energy and Petroleum)
Potential Liability:
- Breach of public trust
- Dereliction of duty
- Conflict of interest violations

Key Actions:
- Oversaw problematic licensing decisions
- Failed to ensure proper oversight
- Involved in PetroNor settlement

ii. Jerreh Barrow (Director General, Petroleum Commission)
Potential Liability:
- Regulatory negligence
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Conflict of interest (cousin relationship with Sanyang)

Key Actions:
- Recommended waiving $22 million penalty
- Failed to verify drilling data
- Accepted unsubstantiated claims about investment

iii. Ba Tambedou (Former Attorney-General)
Potential Liability:
- Professional negligence
- Breach of public duty
- Inadequate legal oversight

Key Actions:
- Involved in problematic legal decisions
- Participated in PetroNor settlement
- Removed Secretary to Commission during asset disposal

4. Legal Representatives

i. Amie Bensouda
Potential Liability:
- Professional conflicts of interest
- Ethical violations if proven
- Professional negligence if established

**Note:** Provided written response denying involvement in FAR Ltd. matters

ii. Aziz Bensouda
Potential Liability:
- Professional conflicts of interest
- Potential breach of professional duties
- Ethical violations if proven

Key Actions:
- Served as local counsel for FAR Ltd.
- Involved in license negotiations
- Participated in ALSF review

5. Institutional Liability

i. The Petroleum Commission
Institutional Liability:
- Regulatory failure
- Inadequate oversight
- Breach of statutory duties

Key Failures:
- Inadequate vetting of FAR Ltd.
- Poor supervision of drilling operations
- Insufficient data verification
- Improper waiver of penalties

ii. Ministry of Energy and Petroleum
Institutional Liability:
- Administrative negligence
- Policy failures
- Oversight deficiencies

Key Failures:
- Inadequate supervision
- Poor decision-making
- Lack of transparency

ABDUL HAQQ

Summary of Key Issues and Legal Analysis - FAR Ltd. and The Gambia's Oil & Gas Sector

Main Points and Allegations

1. FAR Ltd.'s Operations and Exit
- Sudden, unannounced exit from The Gambia, relinquishing rights to A2 and A5 license blocks
- Secured a release agreement avoiding penalties, fees, or liabilities
- Failed to provide detailed drilling data and denied officials access to verification points
- Declared blocks were not extensions of SNE Sangomar field, potentially denying Gambia stake in shared reservoir

2. Regulatory and Governance Issues
- Inadequate oversight by Petroleum Commission
- Lack of transparency in financial transactions
- Waiver of $22 million penalty obligation
- Reduction of statutory costs without proper justification
- Insufficient due diligence in license transfers

3. Conflict of Interest Allegations
- Close relationships between key officials and decision-makers
- Family connections in regulatory positions
- Dual representation concerns with legal counsel
- Lack of independent verification of drilling results

4. Financial Impact
- Potential loss of revenue from shared reservoir rights
- Waived penalties and reduced statutory costs
- Limited financial transparency
- Questions over reported $100 million investment claim

Legal Recourse Options

1. National Level

A. Administrative Law Actions
- Judicial review of Petroleum Commission decisions
- Challenge to validity of license surrender agreements
- Review of penalty waivers and statutory cost reductions
- Investigation into regulatory compliance

B. Criminal Law
- Investigation into potential breach of public trust

- Examination of conflict of interest violations
- Review of disclosure obligations
- Assessment of regulatory compliance

C. Civil Law
- Action for breach of contractual obligations
- Claims for economic loss
- Recovery of waived penalties
- Damages for inadequate performance

2. International Level

A. Investment Treaty Claims
- Review of bilateral investment treaties
- Assessment of fair and equitable treatment obligations
- Examination of transparency requirements
- Investigation of regulatory compliance

B. International Arbitration
- ICSID proceedings for treaty violations
- Commercial arbitration under license agreements
- Dispute resolution under international law
- Claims under UNCITRAL rules

C. Cross-Border Enforcement
- Asset recovery proceedings
- International cooperation requests
- Mutual legal assistance treaties
- Enforcement of arbitral awards

Recommended Actions

1. Immediate Steps
- Secure all available documentation and data
- Preserve electronic records and communications
- Engage forensic accountants
- Commission independent technical analysis of drilling data

2. Investigation Phase
- Conduct thorough audit of license arrangements
- Review all regulatory decisions and approvals
- Examine financial transactions
- Interview key personnel and witnesses

3. Legal Strategy
- Engage international energy law specialists
- Prepare parallel domestic and international proceedings
- Consider interim measures to preserve evidence
- Develop comprehensive litigation strategy

4. Regulatory Reform
- Strengthen oversight mechanisms
- Implement transparent decision-making processes
- Establish independent verification procedures
- Enhance conflict of interest regulations

D. Priority Actions

1. Immediate Technical Review
- Independent assessment of SNE Sangomar field extension claims
- Verification of drilling data and well locations
- Analysis of seismic data
- Expert evaluation of reservoir connectivity

2. Financial Investigation
- Audit of reported investments
- Trace financial transactions
- Evaluate true value of waived penalties
- Assess actual economic impact

3. Legal Proceedings
- File preservation orders for all relevant documents
- Initiate domestic regulatory review
- Prepare international arbitration claims
- Consider criminal investigations where warranted

E. Conclusion

The situation presents multiple avenues for legal recourse, both domestic and international. Success will depend on:
- Quality and availability of evidence
- Strength of technical data
- Political will for enforcement
- Resources for international proceedings

Primary focus should be on:
1. Securing technical evidence of reservoir connectivity
2. Challenging the validity of penalty waivers
3. Investigating regulatory failures
4. Pursuing international arbitration options

Time is of essence in preserving evidence and initiating proceedings within relevant limitation periods.

F. Key Individuals and Entities Cited - Potential Liability Analysis

1. Corporate Entities

FAR Ltd. and Subsidiaries
Potential Liability:
- Misrepresentation of drilling results and data
- Breach of contractual obligations regarding data sharing
- Potential fraud regarding well locations and reservoir connectivity
- Breach of regulatory requirements
- Non-compliance with verification procedures

Key Actions:
- Denied officials access to crucial verification points
- Withheld drilling data
- Designated Bambo well as 'tight hole' restricting disclosure
- Made potentially false claims about SNE Sangomar field extension
- Potentially misrepresented $100 million investment claim

2. Key Corporate Officials

i. Cath Norman (FAR Ltd. Senior Management)
Potential Liability:
- Corporate liability for misrepresentation
- Personal liability for regulatory breaches
- Responsibility for corporate governance failures

Key Actions:
- Developed relationships with Senegalese officials
- Negotiated $126 million payment from Woodside Energy

ii. Rolf Stork (FAR Ltd. Representative in Gambia)
Potential Liability:
- Corporate representation in questionable transactions
- Potential complicity in regulatory breaches
- Facilitation of improper relationships

Key Actions:
- Coordinated with Ministry and Petroleum Commission
- Negotiated license extension
- Facilitated exit without penalties

3. Government Officials

i. Fafa Sanyang (Former Minister of Energy and Petroleum)
Potential Liability:
- Breach of public trust
- Dereliction of duty
- Conflict of interest violations

Key Actions:
- Oversaw problematic licensing decisions
- Failed to ensure proper oversight
- Involved in PetroNor settlement

ii. Jerreh Barrow (Director General, Petroleum Commission)
Potential Liability:
- Regulatory negligence
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Conflict of interest (cousin relationship with Sanyang)

Key Actions:
- Recommended waiving $22 million penalty
- Failed to verify drilling data
- Accepted unsubstantiated claims about investment

iii. Ba Tambedou (Former Attorney-General)
Potential Liability:
- Professional negligence
- Breach of public duty
- Inadequate legal oversight

Key Actions:
- Involved in problematic legal decisions
- Participated in PetroNor settlement
- Removed Secretary to Commission during asset disposal

4. Legal Representatives

i. Amie Bensouda
Potential Liability:
- Professional conflicts of interest
- Ethical violations if proven
- Professional negligence if established

**Note:** Provided written response denying involvement in FAR Ltd. matters

ii. Aziz Bensouda
Potential Liability:
- Professional conflicts of interest
- Potential breach of professional duties
- Ethical violations if proven

Key Actions:
- Served as local counsel for FAR Ltd.
- Involved in license negotiations
- Participated in ALSF review

5. Institutional Liability

i. The Petroleum Commission
Institutional Liability:
- Regulatory failure
- Inadequate oversight
- Breach of statutory duties

Key Failures:
- Inadequate vetting of FAR Ltd.
- Poor supervision of drilling operations
- Insufficient data verification
- Improper waiver of penalties

ii. Ministry of Energy and Petroleum
Institutional Liability:
- Administrative negligence
- Policy failures
- Oversight deficiencies

Key Failures:
- Inadequate supervision
- Poor decision-making
- Lack of transparency

6. Legal Exposure Analysis

Criminal Liability

1. Public Officials:
- Breach of public trust
- Abuse of office
- Corruption if proven
- Conspiracy if established

2. Corporate Officials:
- Fraud if proven
- False representations
- Regulatory violations
- Conspiracy if established

Civil Liability

1. Public Officials:
- Personal liability for negligence
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Professional malpractice

2. Corporate Entities:
- Contractual breaches
- Tortious liability
- Professional negligence
- Economic loss claims

Administrative Liability

1. Government Institutions:
- Regulatory failures
- Administrative negligence
- Policy breaches

2. Individual Officials:
- Disciplinary actions
- Professional sanctions
- Administrative penalties

7. Evidence Requirements

A. For Criminal Charges

- Documentary evidence of deliberate misconduct
- Witness testimony
- Financial records
- Communication records
- Technical data verification

B. For Civil Claims

- Proof of losses
- Evidence of negligence
- Documentation of breaches
- Expert testimony
- Financial analysis

C. For Administrative Actions

- Regulatory records
- Internal communications
- Policy documents
- Audit trails
- Performance records

8. Statute of Limitations

Important considerations for different types of actions:
1. Criminal: Varies by offense
2. Civil: Generally 6 years
3. Administrative: Usually shorter periods
4. International: Depends on treaty/agreement

9. Jurisdictional Considerations

Domestic

- Gambian courts
- Administrative tribunals
- Professional bodies
- Regulatory authorities

International
- International arbitration venues
- Foreign courts for enforcement
- International criminal courts if applicable
- Regional courts and tribunals

10. Priority Actions for Each Category

Immediate Actions

1. Secure evidence against key individuals
2. Freeze relevant assets where possible
3. Issue preservation notices
4. Initiate preliminary investigations

Medium-Term Actions

1. File formal charges/claims
2. Commence regulatory proceedings
3. Initiate international procedures
4. Begin asset recovery process

Long-Term Strategy

1. Reform regulatory framework
2. Strengthen oversight mechanisms
3. Implement accountability measures
4. Enhance transparency requirements

Recommended International Law Firms and Lawyers for Gambian Oil & Gas Dispute

Top-Tier International Law Firms

1. Volterra Fietta (London)
Key Strengths:
- Specializes in state representation
- Extensive African resource dispute experience
- Strong public international law expertise

Key Contacts:
- Robert Volterra
- Graham Coop
- Álvaro Nistal

Relevant Experience:
- Represented African states in oil & gas disputes
- Successfully handled boundary disputes affecting resource rights
- Strong track record in investment treaty arbitration

2. Dechert LLP (Paris/London)
Key Strengths:
- Strong African practice
- Expertise in state representation
- Resource nationalism experience

Key Contacts:
- Arif Ali
- Eduardo Silva Romero
- Michael Ostrove

Relevant Experience:
- Multiple African state representations
- Successfully represented Ghana in maritime boundary dispute
- Strong track record in ICSID arbitrations

3. Lalive (Geneva/London)
Key Strengths:
- Specialist in state representation
- Strong natural resources practice
- Public international law expertise

Key Contacts:
- Veijo Heiskanen
- Matthias Scherer
- Noradèle Radjai

Relevant Experience:
- Multiple African state representations
- Strong track record in oil & gas disputes
- Expertise in transparency and corruption cases

African Specialist Firms

1. Asafo & Co
Key Strengths:
- Pan-African expertise
- Energy sector focus
- Local knowledge

Key Contacts:
- Pascal Agboyibor
- Jean-Claude Klutse

Relevant Experience:
- Multiple African state representations
- Strong understanding of local context
- Experience with class actions

2. Aluko & Oyebode (Nigeria)
Key Strengths:
- Regional expertise
- Oil & gas sector focus
- Class action experience

Relevant Experience:
- Nigerian oil & gas disputes
- Community representation
- Environmental claims

Specialized Boutique Firms

1. Three Crowns LLP
Key Strengths:
- Specialist arbitration practice
- Strong African experience
- State representation expertise

Key Contacts:
- Jan Paulsson
- Gaëtan Verhoosel
- Constantine Partasides QC

Relevant Experience:
- Multiple African state representations
- Oil & gas expertise
- Investment treaty experience

Public Interest Law Firms

1. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Strengths:
- Environmental expertise
- Community representation
- Pro bono capability

2. Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW)
Strengths:
- Global network
- Environmental expertise
- Community support

Funding Options

1. Litigation Funders
- Burford Capital
- Therium Capital Management
- Harbour Litigation Funding
- Omni Bridgeway

2. Public Interest Support
- Open Society Foundations
- African Legal Support Facility
- International Development Law Organization

Recommended Approach

Phase 1: Initial Consultation
1. Approach top 3 firms simultaneously:
- Volterra Fietta
- Dechert LLP
- Lalive

2. Present:
- Complete case file
- Technical data
- Economic impact assessment
- Community impact documentation

Phase 2: Class Action Structure
1. Define class:
- Gambian citizens
- Affected communities
- State interests

2. Establish representation:
- Lead counsel
- Local counsel
- Technical experts

Phase 3: Funding Strategy
1. Mixed funding approach:
- Commercial litigation funding
- Public interest support
- State resources
- Community contributions

Key Considerations for Selection

1. Experience Criteria
- African state representation
- Oil & gas disputes
- Class action experience
- Investment treaty arbitration
- Asset recovery

2. Resource Capability
- International offices
- Technical expertise
- Local knowledge
- Financial strength

3. Strategic Considerations
- Political sensitivity
- Media management
- Community engagement
- Environmental expertise

Immediate Next Steps

1. Documentation Preparation
- Compile complete case file
- Gather technical evidence
- Prepare economic impact assessment
- Document community impact

2. Initial Outreach
- Contact recommended firms
- Schedule preliminary meetings
- Prepare presentation materials
- Organize technical data

3. Funding Discussion
- Approach litigation funders
- Explore public interest support
- Assess state resources
- Consider community funding

4. Local Coordination
- Identify local counsel
- Establish community liaison
- Create communication strategy
- Set up documentation center

Success Metrics

1. Legal Expertise
- Track record in similar cases
- African state experience
- Technical understanding
- Resource availability

2. Financial Capability
- Funding arrangements
- Cost structure
- Resource commitment
- Long-term sustainability

3. Strategic Alignment
- Understanding of objectives
- Community engagement
- Political sensitivity
- Environmental commitment

--------
https://fatunetwork.net/safeguarding-the-national-interest-transparency-at-a-crossroads-for-far-ltd-and-petronor-governance-and-accountability-in-the-gambias-oil-and-gas-sector/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGduW1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHcH3PUGdRIsogXUNFrysAmG695bVNiR3gIq7SPpV7mbhfkqK9HcBsPFIsw_aem_87jwKP5cwiz2fktIp8wx0Q

Why Talib Shouldn't be re-elected

According to auditors, the system KMC management uses to record mbalit income has no data for the longest periods so they (auditors) can't tell how much is collected in the mbalit project.

Auditors asked for accurate data on the Mbalit project. Regarding missing data, the Exowtech system, the audit stated that during their audit they noted that the council started using the Exowtech system to manage the Mbalit project's daily collections and transactions in 2019.

It however said that their findings revealed that there is no data available in the system before August 2021.

The only available data on the exowtech system is from August 2021 to date, saying that the previous year's data could not be found on the system.

According to the audit, the implication is that the council may have issues producing receipts on daily collections and transactions on periods prior to August 2021 from the Exowtech system about the Mbalit project. This may lead to issues of transparency and accountability.

The audit office asked management to ensure that the council has in custody data from the Exowtech system on regular bases, which must be securely saved by the council and can be referred to whenever the need arises and data collected before August 2021 should also be retrieved and properly secured.

Receipts are missing everywhere and no one is accounting properly for the mbalit project income. The auditors indicated that the matter is not been regularized.

For transparency and accountability Bakary Y. Badjie For KM Mayor 2023.

Revelation From The Commission of Inquiry

KMC under Talib become a State within a State? As a bombshell revelation at the Local Government Commission reveals that Talib has increased his personal and Councillors' emoluments and allowances in KMC from D9,625,194.16 (Nine million six hundred and twenty-five thousand one hundred and ninety-four dalasis sixteen bututs) in 2018 to (Fourteen Million one hundred and fourteen thousand nine hundred and twenty-six dalasis forty-eight bututs) ( D14,114,926.48 ) in 2021.

The Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government & Lands Mr. Buba Sanyang told the Commission today that the KMC Councillors pay themselves as they like with allowances and always ignore the endorsements and recommendations of the Ministry, unlike other Councils.

The Chairperson of the Commission Madam Jainaba Bah Sambou asked the Permanent Secretary as to who is legally mandated to determine the allowances of the Councillors for Municipalities.

The Permanent Secretary answered that it is the Minister who is mandated to determine Councillors’ allowances. The Chairperson mentioned an increase in emoluments and allowances of the KMC mayor's office increased from ( Nine Million six hundred and twenty-five thousand one hundred and Ninety-four dalasis and sixteen bututs ) D9,625,194.16 in 2018 to Fourteen Million one hundred and fourteen thousand nine hundred and twenty-six dalasis forty-eight bututs ( D14,114,926.48 ) in 2021.

She further quoted section 27 of the local government Act which mandated the Minister to determine Councillors' personal emoluments for approval.

The Permanent Secretary Mr Sanyang stated that KMC Mayor and Councillors do as they like and pay themselves as they want disregarding of Minister’s approval.

According to the testimony KMC in particular hires and contracts as they wish disregarding ministry approval or endorsement. We revise their budgets we send them they ignore and they pay themselves as they feel. They go by what they want sanyang concluded.

It is time for Gambians to ask if KMC is a state within a state because we all know even the president of the republic and his minister's salary must pass through the National Assembly for approval and they cannot pay themselves as they wish.

So how can KMC Mayor and Councillors pay themselves as they wish? This is among the reason why Talib should not the re-elected.

Why Talib Should Not Be Re-Elected Series Continues!

The tallingding buffer zone toilet project at a cost of over D1.8million that they never gave a contract and the toilets are not in good condition according to the audit report 2021.

Tallinding Buffer Zone, the auditor stated that they noticed that the council has not deployed a toilet attendant at the zone for a long time, and as per 2021 ledger records, they noticed a toilet amounting to GMD1,875,650.00 was posted as various expenses for these developments.

According to the auditor, they requested for review project but the council failed present any formal contract document to accord this development

The auditors point out that without a toilet attendant, it will be very difficult to maintain the toilet in good condition and user-friendly in the long-run

The audit indicates that they cannot ascertain whether the rehabilitation was in line with the contract and whether all parties were able to fulfill their responsibilities as per the contract.

Auditors recommended that the council provide the contract document for the rehabilitation for their review to confirm the performance contract.

The council deserves a better leadership

Why Talib Shouldn't Be Re-Elected! Mispriority

Purchase of Un-Use Hammer Mill (Botto Crusher Machine) expensive bottle crushing machine bought and never used under the mbalit project.

The audit stated during their audit they find out that the council purchased a Hammer Mill at a cost of D1,143,198.19 which include D34,931.00 for fees and charges by Gamdirect Money Transfer, but the council did not use the machine since purchased and is not included in their fixed asset register.

They also noticed further that the purchase of the machine did not follow GPPA procedures and the fund for this purchase was from monies by Banjul Breweries Ltd meant for the maintenance of trucks as per the ledgers dated 28th September 2020.

According to the auditors, the purchase was a transfer to the Mbalit project bank account with AGIB Bank and the machine was purchased from Bever State Enterprise, a Gambian-owned enterprise based in the United States of America (USA).

The auditor highlighted high Implications because the purchase of un-use items revealed that this particular machine was not needed by the Council which lead to a waste of resources that could have been used to finance other Council activities.

They stated that the fund meant for truck maintenance did not serve its intended purpose which might discourage funding partners to fund Council activities.

While noncompliance with GPPA laws and regulations is a violation of the law and thus results to value for money which might lead to loss of funds.

They recommended management genuine explanation for the purchase of the machine which is not in use and to comply with GPPA rules and regulations at all times, also used funds for their intended purposes and the machine is included in the Council's fixed asset register.

To be continued.