By Mama A. Touray
Gambia Public Procurement Authority Director of Compliance, Samba JB Tambura, and Director of Procurement Policy and Operations, on Wednesday, 23rd August 2023 gave another marathon testimony at the Local Government of Commission of Inquiry (LGCI) on Brikama Area Council Chief Executive Officer’s alleged forgery of contracts committee meeting minutes to obtain GPPA approval to purchased two second hand pick up vehicles for D1.7 million.
The GPPA procurement report revealed that on the 3rd of July 2020, the Brikama Area Council (BAC) wrote to GPPA seeking permission to use the Request for Quotation method to procure two trucks with an estimated amount D1,700,000.
The report further revealed that On 30th June 2020, GPPA wrote back to BAC declining approval of the request with the reasons that the purchase of secondhand is not catered for in public procurement and that the vehicles in question did not fall under the category of specialised equipment.
The report also added that there are known suppliers, who are engaged in the sales of vehicles and suggested for the BrikamaArea Council to use open tender.
Three (3) days following the rejection of the application, on the 3rd of August 2020, the Brikama Area Council wrote back on a later date seeking reconsideration of the decision indicating that it was COVID-19 era and without the vehicles, it would hamper the operations of the council.
The report according to Director Sanyang stated that BAC was weak in its revenue collection in 2020 due to lack of mobility.
He said on the 5th of August 2020, GPPA wrote back to Brikama Area Council maintaining their earlier decision, indicating that they can help the area council to shorten the bidding period to fourteen (14) days.
“On the same 5th of August 2020, which was the exact day the second application was refused by GPPA; BAC wrote back to GPPA a letter titled “further appeal” for the procurement of the two reconditioned vehicles restating that they don’t have money to purchase new vehicles. The area council also indicated that the Brikama Market caught fire and it was a constraint for the council,” Sanyang explained at the commission.
The Deputy lead counsel together with the Commission noted that the Brikama Area Council never stated that they do not have money and that the letters from the Brikama Area Council had the same reference.
In reacting to this, Director Sanyang affirmed that “They never stated in the previous letters that they do not have money”.
The Commission noted that on the same day (5th of August), which was the day of the rejection of the second request, BAC wrote to GPPA and this time around, GPPA granted approval. In the letter, despite approving the request, GPPA indicated that the minute of the contracts committee was not signed.
“This was a gateway for fraud,” Deputy Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez said.
Sanyang replied that in the letter the approval was made “without admission of liability”.
Deputy Lead Counsel Patrick asked, “What do you mean by that?”
Sanyang responded that they were under pressure and they needed to do that “We were pushed into a corner”.
Lawyer Patrick Gomez said the GPPA letter suggested to the Brikama Area Council what to come up with to obtain approval. The content of the GPPA letter was “They [BAC] did not mention that they don’t have cash”.
Lawyer Patrick Gomez stated that GPPA was suggesting to the Brikama Area Council what to write and that was exactly what the area council did on the 5th of August 2020. Director Sanyang concurred with the statement.
“You told them that they did not say they don’t have money and this is why they included it in the letter,” Lawyer Gomez said.
Sanyang responded “Correct”.
Lawyer Gomez said the CEO was busy forging documents. He pointed out that the reference numbers for the different letters were the same and the CEO was only changing the dates.
“All those documents were forged,” Patrick Gomez said.
In reacting to that Compliance Director said “It is very baffling”.
“It is not only baffling, but it is a scheme,” deputy lead counsel Gomez said, and added, “You participated in that scheme.”
Both Tambura and Sanyang could not respond to this statement
“Why are granting approval when no condition has been met? Were you under pressure?” Gomez asked.
Sanyang responded that they were not under pressure, and Counsel Gomez further asked “Why was it granted then?” Both witnesses remained muted and could not provide answers.
“When you are put in a tight corner will you approve procurement?” Gomez asked.
“If it is not in line, I won’t,” Sanyang said.
“Your previous answer that you were put in a corner is incorrect,” Gomez said and Sanyang admitted.
Lawyer Gomez said the logos on the letters from the BrikamaArea Council were not original, adding that they were forged. The witnesses agreed with the lawyer and both of them said the logos were not original.
“All the reference numbers and logos are the same and signed by the same individual,” Gomez said, and both Tambura and Sanyang concurred.
The Commission noted further that at the time CEO Jonga made the application for approval to GPPA, the contracts committee did not sit over the matter and discuss it. It was 4 days before the Contracts Committee met.
The Commission further noted several anomalies in the documents including the overlapping of the printing.
“There was an overlap of printing,” Gomez said, adding “This should make any reasonable person suspect fraud.”
Counsel together with the Commission noted that the minutes of the contracts committee were typed while the signatures were photocopied.
“Should the contracts committee meeting happen before the application or after?” Lawyer Gomez said.
“It should be before the application” Tambura answered, adding “It is an anomaly.”
On the 18th of August 2020, Brikama Area Council wrote to GPPA thanking them for the approval and Counsel Gomez told the witnesses that “They were thanking you for taking part in a scheme.”
“In this application, did they fulfill any conditions? Was it supposed to be approved at any given time?” Gomez asked and Sanyang responded No.
Gomez further asked, “How was it possible that your office will grant this application with all these red flags?”
The witnesses were both silent and Counsel asked if they got the answer and they both replied that they don’t have.
Gomez asked them “In that file, is there any requirement satisfied?” and they responded no.
“If anyone wants to have a reasonable belief of suspicion fraud, will that be correct?”
“Yes,” Sanyang said.