By Arret Jatta
The former Councilor of Kololi Ward, Peter Mendy, told the Local Government Commission of Inquiry on Monday 28th October that he brought in his son to accompany trucks to do daily collection of waste by serving as a pointer.
“He was not involved in revenue collection. He was there to serve as a pointer and was not paid. His duty as a pointer is to make sure that the truck reaches the areas to collect rubbish,” he explained.
Lead Counsel Peter Gomez put it to him that “You should not have asked your son to be part of the team to collect revenue or as a pointer. If you wanted to create employment for him he Could have applied, because this is not a family business.”
Meanwhile, the witness also stated that he was informed about the missing D60,000, and he, as the Councillor, paid it.
He provided the letter sent to him by Bakary Singhateh, the Manager of the “Mbalit” Project, and the letter was tendered and admitted in evidence.
“I was responsible for the truck and I took full responsibility,” he added.
The witness was told that the letter indicated a shortage of D51,000 and not D60,000 as he claimed. He replied that what he meant to say in his written statement was about D60,000 because he was not sure of the amount he paid.
Mr Mendy also claimed that Mayor Bensouda called his party leader (Hon. Halifa Sallah) to inform him about the missing fund and he was summoned by Honourable Sallah to come to his residence.
After the meeting, he said he undertook to repay the whole sum, and the deductions were made from his allowances.
“If you see you agreed to pay the sum was it because your son was implicated,” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“No, I would have still paid because the trucks were under my responsibility then,” he said.
He also testified that he was advised by Mayor Bensouda that he should remove his son and he complied with that advice.
The Commission requested him to provide his pay slips.
Peter said after paying the missing sum, he also returned the management of the trucks back to the council to avoid such situations.
He added that his son served for only one month.
“You should not have put your son there,” Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness.
“Yes, I agree,” he said.
Lead Counsel Gomez added that the people directly employed would be responsible for any shortages and there was no need for putting his son there.
The witness concurred and said his vision was for him to serve as a pointer only, and not to handle cash.
However, he said there is a secretary responsible for receiving the collections and taking the sums to the Council. He said if there were missing funds, the secretary should pay it, saying that the only access his son had was to the books and not the collections.