In his testimony before the National Assembly Select Committee on Wednesday, former Janneh Commission secretary Alhaji Mamadi Kurang disclosed that the Ministry of Justice was in charge of the Commission’s financial operations.
Kurang made an appearance before the committee looking into the sale and disposal of former President Yahya Jammeh’s assets. He said in his evidence that the Ministry of Justice has to handle all of the Commission’s money requests.
Kurang was asked to confirm whether he was the first secretary of the Commission by Lead Counsel Lamin M. Dibba at the start of the meeting. “I want to know if you are the commission’s first secretary,” the attorney inquired.
According to the witness, he was appointed as the first Secretary of the Janneh Commission by virtue of Legal Notice No. 15 of 2017.
Before the aforementioned legal notice was issued, Counsel Dibba questioned the witness about any previous interactions he had had with the appointing authority.
In response, the witness stated in his testimony that he met with the Attorney General (AG) and was told that he was being considered for the Secretary to the Commission office. According to him, the AG asked if he would be open to accepting the position.
The AG clarified that they were looking for a candidate who met a certain profile, the witness said. This included someone who had lived and worked in The Gambia for the entire 22-year period, had no official position during the APRC regime, had no direct contact with former President Yahya Jammeh, had a strong grasp of finance, and had not been a direct victim of the former president.
Counsel Dibba also explained to the witness that the Committee wanted to know what procedures were taken to create the Commission.
According to the witness, he first met with the commissioners to help them comprehend the extent and cost ramifications of carrying out a study of this kind into the previous president’s activities.
“In the meeting, we discuss what we need; the chairman leads the meeting, and he lays out what we need in terms of staffing, in terms of files, and in terms of nomenclature. I was taking the notes as the secretary,” he said.
The particular tasks and responsibilities of each member, including the chairperson, commissioners, secretary, and legal counsel, were also clarified during the meeting, he added. It also helped to establish expectations for the commission’s activities.
Counsel Dibba also asked the witness if there had been any conversations about the administrative procedures that would be followed while the Commission was in office.
In answer, the witness listed a number of topics that were covered during the discussion, including the necessary prerequisites for starting up. According to him, these comprised, among other essentials, a security team, support personnel, cars with drivers, appointment letters, copies of the gazetted Terms of Reference (TOR), stationery, and two laptops with Internet dongles.
“So the commission never has a working budget?” inquired Counsel Dibba.
In response, the witness stated: “The commission members and the lead counsel discussed a budget, and I recall that one of the commissioners, Abioseh George, who is also an accountant, and I began working on a budget based on this meeting to determine how much these items would cost. We did that and discussed it with the AG and the members, but I believe we were informed along the process that the ministry would be in charge of the budget and that we would only be submitting requests as necessary.
He clarified that their preparation was only a proposal and that the government’s approval was required for it to become an official budget. He went on to say that he had no idea if it had ever received official approval.
“We were told that there is a budget there for us. There is an accountant by the name of Alhagie Babu who was at the Ministry of Justice for most of the time when we needed these things. He was responsible for getting us this and our allowances, or anything else we needed. As far as I could remember, he was the accounting officer of the Ministry of Justice,” the witness explained.
The witness stated that the accountant was not based at the Commission and only came when he had something to deliver in response to Counsel Dibba’s question about whether the accountant was stationed at the Commission or the Ministry.
The witness clarified that the accountant was meant to be under his department within the commission’s administrative framework. However, the accountant worked from the Ministry rather than being based at the commission itself.
He went on to say that if the commission needed resources, a formal written request was sent to the Attorney General or Solicitor General, usually signed by him or the chairperson. They would then direct the accountant to furnish the required assistance after receiving the request.
“Whatever the commission needed was provided; was that the case? Counsel Dibba asked.
“Whatever we need, we will request from them, and eventually it gets provided,” the witness said.
According to the witness, the commission could not operate with complete autonomy if it did not have authority over the budget.
“And there was a little back and forth, but I believe the attorney general finally made it clear that the Ministry of Justice is supposed to control budgets and set up commissions,” the witness said.
