Commission Report Finds Former KMC CEO Sainabou Martin Sonko Primarily Responsible for Major Financial Governance Failures
A draft report by the Commission of Inquiry into Local Government Councils and Connected Matters has found that former Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) Chief Executive Officer Sainabou Martin Sonko bears primary statutory responsibility for a series of serious financial management failures that occurred during her tenure.
The report, obtained by Kerr Fatou, details alleged misconduct ranging from unauthorized loan guarantees and widespread procurement violations to failure to address suspected revenue theft. It also records Mrs. Sonko’s admission that she retained D30,000 given to her by a contractor, a payment she acknowledged appeared intended to improperly influence her.
The Commission was established under Section 200 of The Gambia’s Constitution and Legal Notice No. 7 of 2023.Public hearings were held from late 2024 to September 2025 on KMC’s activities from May 2018 to January 2023. The Commission’s final report, signed by Chairperson Jainaba Bah and four commissioners, was handed over to President Adama Barrow on May 11, 2026.As CEO of KMC, Mrs. Sonko served as both the statutory head of administration and principal accounting officer of the country’s most populous municipality.Section 43 of the Local Government Act 2002 makes her legally responsible to ensure that public funds were spent lawfully, were properly documented and in compliance with procurement regulations.
Unauthorized Loan Guarantees
One of the Commission’s most serious findings is related to loan guarantees and domiciliation undertakings that were personally signed by Mrs.Sonko on behalf of the Council without the approval required by law.
According to the report, she executed guarantees for the KMC Staff Welfare Association and KMC Staff Credit Union, including a D800,000 guarantee with Trust Bank and additional commitments with AGIB Bank. During testimony, Mrs.Sonko admitted that before the Council committed to these obligations, there was no Council Resolution passed, no Finance Committee review, no legal advice, risk assessment or written authority.
The Commission found that these actions were in contravention of Section 43 and 54 of the Local Government Finance and Audit Act 2004 and ruled that officers who executed the guarantees were personally liable for the financial exposure arising from them.
Admission of D30,000 Payment
The report also highlights Mrs.Sonko’s admission that contractor Mr. Danso of Almot Real Estate offered her money in connection with requests for advance payments.
While she stated that she rejected an earlier and larger offer, she acknowledged that D30,000 was later left in her office and was never immediately returned.
The Commission recorded the amount in its Consolidated Loss and Recovery Matrix as a payment received by Mrs. Sonko, with its recovery status listed as “Not returned.” Investigators found that her failure to either return the funds or formally report the incident was, at minimum, imprudent.
The same contractor was involved in a separate land transaction in which KMC committed D2,128,752 despite never securing ownership of the land in question.## Non-Action on Revenue Theft Claims
The Commission also observed serious lapses in KMC’s reaction to evidence of revenue losses.
An internal memo, admitted as Exhibit LGC/SMS/KMC/011, showed that records amounting to D297,941.43 had been deleted from the Council’s Matrix revenue management system. These deleted records represent monies collected but not deposited into Council accounts.
Mrs. Sonko acknowledged receipt of the memo. The Commission, however, found that she neither initiated disciplinary proceedings, nor pursued recovery efforts, nor referred the matter to the relevant authorities, despite remaining in office for about seven months after the irregularities were discovered.The report described this as a major institutional failure and noted that applicable laws allow responsible officers to be surcharged for such losses.
Procurement Violations
The Commission documented what it described as a sustained pattern of procurement irregularities during Mrs. Sonko’s administration.
Among the issues identified were:
- More than D13.9 million paid to contractor Lang Karamo Suwareh & Sons without job completion certificates and through multiple-bank, multi-cheque payment arrangements.* Payments to General Procurement Services based on photocopied documentation, with some works later found to be defective or never completed.
- Extensive reliance on single-source procurement, with D18.9 million worth of contracts awarded through this method in 2021 alone.
- Repeated bypassing of the Contracts Committee and use of informal procurement mechanisms outside legally established procedures.
The Commission found these practices to be in violation of the Public Procurement Act 2014 and GPPA Regulations 2019.
Mrs. Sonko argued that many of the procurements were undertaken under urgent circumstances, including efforts to clear illegal dumpsites.
Political Pressure Not a Legal Defense
During her testimony, Mrs.Sonko described what she characterized as a politically dominated environment in which administrative independence was severely limited.
She told the Commission that she attended daily briefings at the Mayor’s office, lacked authority to approve activities independently, and that virtually all payment approvals were subject to higher-level political oversight. She cited her suspension and eventual dismissal as evidence of the challenges she faced.But the Commission did not accept the argument that the accounting officer was exonerated of legal liability by political pressure.
The report noted that under the Local Government Finance and Audit Act, 2004, the CEO is personally responsible for safeguarding public funds and ensuring compliance with financial regulations, regardless of political directives.“The described decision-making environment supports a finding of weakened administrative independence but does not legally absolve accounting-officer responsibility,” the report stated.
Questions Over Share Allocation
The Commission also raised concerns regarding Mrs. Sonko’s receipt of shares in the KMC Municipal Transport Company after shares belonging to private partner NOFLAYE were forfeited for failing to inject promised capital.
Evidence before the Commission showed that the company’s Board did not properly scrutinize the allocation and failed to formally document its purportedly temporary nature.
Investigators concluded that the arrangement raised a prima facie case of defective corporate governance and created a risk of abuse within an entity supported by public resources.
Key Findings on Accountability
The Commission’s principal findings regarding Mrs. Sonko include:
- Primary statutory liability for financial control failures, procurement breaches, unauthorized loan commitments, and revenue management failures during her tenure as CEO.
- Potential surcharge liability under Sections 70–74 of the Public Finance Act 2014 for losses arising from unauthorized expenditure, inadequate documentation, and failure to address identified irregularities.
- Personal responsibility for the D30,000 payment recorded as received and not returned.* Shared responsibility, alongside Babucarr Sanyang, for the D2,128,752 Almot land transaction in which ownership of the property was never secured.
The Commission concluded that the irregularities at KMC reflected not isolated mistakes but a broader collapse of statutory financial control systems. It characterized the situation as involving gross administrative negligence, unauthorized financial commitments, breaches of fiduciary duty, and institutional control failures.
Recommendations
The report has been submitted to the relevant authorities and recommends a range of actions, including administrative reforms, recovery of losses through surcharge proceedings, disciplinary measures, and, where warranted, criminal investigations.
Although the Commission itself lacks authority to impose criminal penalties, its findings provide a significant evidentiary foundation for possible civil recovery actions and future criminal inquiries.By identifying Mrs. Sonko as a primary liable party in several categories of financial loss, documenting potential surcharge exposure under the Public Finance Act, and recording the admitted receipt of D30,000 that was never returned, the report lays the groundwork for further legal scrutiny by investigative and prosecutorial authorities.
