Landing B. Sanneh, the chairman of the Mansakonko Area Council, made another appearance before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry on Tuesday. This time, he testified about an overpayment to Nema-Su Enterprise, a business that was hired to provide the council with food during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Chairman Sanneh stated that the council’s Contracts Committee is in charge of granting contracts, and that he was not involved in giving the contract to Nema-Su. He said that even though he was aware of the deal, he did not sign the cheque that was used to pay the contractor and was not involved in its procurement process.
Sanneh’s statement was accepted by Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez, who stated that there was no need to question the chairman’s story because there was no evidence to the contrary.
Although he was not directly involved, Chairman Sanneh clarified that he called a meeting because he was concerned about the matter after the commission brought it up. Despite attempts to address the issue, such as contacting the supplier, the payment disparity could not be satisfactorily explained.
“Although I wasn’t present for the entire event, I convened a meeting out of worry for the commission. Chairman Sanneh informed the commission that “the actors and the supplier were unable to connect the difference and what caused it.”
Even after interacting with the supplier, Chairman Sanneh clarified that finding the disparity has proven difficult. “We are finding it very difficult to come to a conclusion,” he said, referring to the unsolved discrepancy between the cash paid and the things supplied.
Counsel Gomez told Chairman Sanneh that, unless new material comes to light later, it seems he was not involved in the transaction based on the evidence that was available.
The chairman was then questioned by the lawyer if he thought it was typical for this kind of situation to arise, in which neither the supplier nor council officials could remember the specifics of the transaction. “Do you believe that to be typical?” he inquired.
In response, Chairman Sanneh called the incident a major lapse and acknowledged that it was uncommon and extremely unusual.
He added that none of the parties, including the supplier, were able to offer any significant information following discussions with his former CEO and other relevant parties. They are having trouble figuring out what really happened, he continued.
“Now, what do you think, because as chairman, you know there is no room for error to pay Mr. Dibba more than he supplied,” Counsel Gomez urged. This is fraud until they provide us with an explanation.
Chairman Sanneh declared that, without proof to the contrary, he would not contest the act’s classification as fraudulent.
To find out exactly what happened, more research is required, he continued.
Counsel Gomez told him that the Commission’s goal from a legal perspective is to convince the commissioners that the act is fraudulent.
In response, Chairman Sanneh said, “Yes, I wouldn’t blame you if you do so based on the information available as of right now.”
Counsel Gomez praised Chairman Sanneh, praising his honesty and sincerity before the commission and recognizing his reputation as a capable leader.
He also told Chairman Sanneh that he would have a week to present any information that could disprove the allegations made about the subject of the probe.
