Modou Jonga, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Brikama Area Council (BAC), encountered rigorous interrogation regarding the sale of council vehicles during a 2020 auction, with evidence indicating that numerous vehicles were sold for less than their assessed values.
During the commission of inquiry, Jonga learned that a vehicle registered as BAC 4 had been evaluated at D40,000 by the evaluator, yet it was sold for merely D10,000.
“What I am saying is that some of these vehicles are sold for a lower price,” lead counsel Patrick Gomez stated.
Jonga recognized the discrepancy, yet he contended that in other instances, certain vehicles were sold for amounts exceeding their assessed value. He provided an example of a vehicle worth D60,000 that sold for twice that amount at auction. Nonetheless, Counsel Gomez emphasized that the commission’s attention was directed towards irregularities rather than exceptions.
“If the evaluation report indicated this should be the amount, then why would it be sold for a lower price?” Gomez applied pressure.
Jonga replied that he was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation at that moment.
Gomez subsequently notified the former CEO that the commission had received an official auction report directed to his office. The report indicates that the total anticipated revenue from the auction was D1,229,600. As of January 28, 2020, only D1,126,100 was generated, resulting in a shortfall of D103,500.
Jonga, however, maintained that the anticipated revenue from the auction had originally been D545,000, rather than exceeding a million dalasis. “That is the figure we were using,” he stated.
Counsel Gomez disputed this, referencing the official summary report directed to Jonga’s office, which explicitly indicated that the anticipated amount was D1.2 million. Jonga asserted that although he did not contest the actual amount raised, the D545,000 figure had been cited in an internal investigation report.
When inquired about whether he had received adequate advice regarding the condition of the vehicles prior to their auction, Jonga stated that he was aware the vehicles were unroadworthy.
What led you to state that the anticipated amount was half a million Dalasi?” Counsel Gomez pointed out, In the report it is stated that the expected amount would be one million two hundred and twenty-nine thousand six hundred dalasis.”
Jonga informed counsel Gomez that the figures he presented represented what the council had obtained from the vehicle auction.
Nonetheless, the counsel expressed a differing opinion, indicating that based on the auction summary report directed to Jonga, a total of D1.1 million had been generated as of January 28, 2029.
Jonga clarified that he did not contest the D1.1 million figure as the actual revenue generated. He noted that the investigation report showed the anticipated value was five hundred and forty-five thousand dalasis.
When questioned about whether he had received adequate guidance concerning the state of the vehicles before the auction, Jonga admitted that he knew the vehicles were not roadworthy.
“How do you know that. What informed your decision,” Counsel Gomez inquired.
Jonga stated that a committee had been formed to supervise the auction process, and that the choice to auction specific vehicles and scrap materials was informed by the committee’s conclusions.
Lead Counsel Gomez asked if Jonga possessed a full evaluation report for every item listed for auction, pointing out that the commission currently retains only a partial report on record.
The witness conceded that the report needed to be more thorough and detailed.
Counsel Gomez elaborated that, according to GPPA regulations, any decision to auction council property must adhere to specific criteria that the Chief Executive Officer is obligated to evaluate prior to moving forward. “In making the decision to subject the council’s property to auction, the GPPA regulation clearly outlines the factors the CEO must consider,” he explained.
He faced additional inquiries regarding the non-compliance with GPPA regulations. In response, witness Jonga acknowledged that although an assessment was carried out, it fell short of being adequate. “The current conditions of each of the vehicles should have been stated, which was not the case,” he remarked.
Counsel Gomez advised the witness that if a requirement is not sufficiently met in accordance with the law, it is essentially the same as not being met at all. The witness concurred, recognizing that the report in question ought to have been more thorough.
He also mentioned that the omission might have been an oversight, but emphasized that the process continued, as they proceeded to engage the Gambia Public Procurement Authority (GPPA).
