6 November 2024 –
Fatoumata Saho-Cham is a resident of Latrikunda Sabiji and currently a finance assistant at the Catholic Relief Services (CRS). She was appointed in the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) in September 2018 and left in June 2021. She was the procurement manager of the KMC.
Her written statement dated 15 May 2023 was tendered and admitted in evidence.
She said she knew Kan Mustapha Kanyi alias Kanjura Kanyi. She was asked about the transaction for the repair of bulldozers D8 and D9. She testified that one day her assistant (Sarata Jaiteh) brought her a request for the repair of bulldozer D8 and D9. She stated that she did not regard it as a request because it was wrong to attach invoices on request. She said the request was for the KMC management to repair the two bulldozers.
“My assistant brought the request with invoices and I asked her how comes a request comes with invoices, and she told me that was how she was given the request,” she said.
She testified that she took the request to the finance director and made a query that it was wrong for a request to come with invoices. She said the management of the KMC already conducted the procurement and only wanted her office to do the paperwork. She added that the finance director asked her to proceed to do the paper work, but she declined from following the instructions.
“On that day, we had a bitter argument,” she said.
She explained that she return the request to her assistant because she brought with the information that she was not going to participate in that process. She testified that her assistant did the paperwork without obtaining any direction from her.
The witness said the procurement process had a lot of loopholes because the amount added together was over one million dalasi, but the KMC officials split the procurement.
“This concerned me a lot. For me, they were avoiding the tender part of it. So they decided to split in order to peg on the Request for Quotation level. In considering all those loopholes in the procurement, I decided to distance myself and I told them outright that I am not going to be part of it,” she said.
She stressed that she did not participate in that procurement.
The witness was handed a payment voucher for the payment made to Lang Karamo Suwareh for the clearing of the illegal dumpsite. This was for the work he allegedly did for the KMC in December 2018. She said the documents provided that the procurement used was Request for Quotation. However, after going through the contract documents, she realised that it was renewal of contract.
“By right, it should have been a single-source but due to oversight, we applied request for quotation,” she said.
“So, the proper procedure was not followed,” Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez said.
“Yes, it was supposed to be single-sourcing. It was a contract renewal,” the witness answered.
She claimed that there were three (3) bidders and they were Lang Karamo Suwareh, Sally’s Enterprise and Sarr Construction. She testified that she did not conduct pre-qualification of their bidding to establish whether they were qualified or not. She said she found their list with the Directorate of Services. She added that they were only added because of the previous contracts they had with the KMC.
“How was Lang Karamo Suwareh selected from the three (3)? What was the determining factor?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“The determining factor was that during the Interim Committee [in 2018] he was contract and gradually we continued with renewing his contracts,” the witness answered.
She testified that the KMC filled the Request for Quotation forms and add the names of the other two companies, but the reality remains that Lang Karamo Suwareh was single-sourced all those contracts.
In the documents, Lang Karamo Suwareh asked to be paid D400,000, Sarr Contruction asked for D450,000 and Sally’s Enterprise asked for D475,000.
“This would suggest that because the figure he had in his bid was way less than the others and therefore he was given the contract. But in actual sense this is not true because the process was not followed. Lang Karamo was single-sourced and given the contract,” Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez said.
“Why were you doing that?” Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness said the Directorate of Service actually requested for the renewal of Lang Karamo’s contract and the paperwork for request for quotation was just formalities.
“The amount is beyond single-sourcing,” Lead Counsel Gomez said.
The witness said the reality of that transaction was Lang Karamo’s contract was extended based on the request of the Directorate of Services and he was awarded that contract through single-sourcing.
“But this is not an extension of contract,” Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez told the witness after reviewing the documents.
“Yes, [it is not] but the request is for extension of contract. From there, they developed that contract,” the witness answered.
“Yes, but we do not have an extension of contract,” he said.
The witness said the contracts awarded to Lang Karamo Suwareh were all for one month and renewed on a monthly basis.
“So, when you filled this contract for request for quotation, it is misleading,” Counsel Gomez said.
“Yes,” the witness answered.
The witness said the forms were filled by her assistant under her supervision.
“I signed it,” she said.
The witness said at the time they were new and it was an oversight.
“What does the procurement regulation say about contract extension?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness was completely silent and did not say anything in response.
She was given another payment voucher for March 2019.
“What procurement method was used?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“This one is single-source,” the witness said.
“But the documents says RFQ [request for quotation]. Can you please reconfirm?,” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“Yes, it says RFQ,” the witness said.
“But the actual fact is it was single-sourced to Lang Karamo Suwareh,” Counsel Gomez said.
“Yes, just like the other one was done?” the witness said in admission to violating procurement rules.
“Why is that the case?” Is that also an oversight?” Counsel Gomez asked.
“Once again, yeah,” she said.
“But this cannot be an oversight. While you were the procurement manager, why was this happening under your watch?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness was silent and did not respond as she was seen smiling.
“The 3 bidders are mentioned in the RFQ relevant forms but you did not receive bidding from the other two,” Lead Counsel Gomez said.
“Yeah,” she replied.
“Actually, we should have used single-sourcing due to the nature of the procurement,” she said.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez said single-sourcing is not the best procurement method in that instance because the amount involved was beyond the threshold of single-sourcing.
“Request for quotation forms were filled and it suggests that you had followed the procedure. You have 3 bidders in these forms – Lang Karamo Suwareh, Sarr Construction and Sally’s Enterprise. You have these 3 listed as bidders but that did not happen. The other three did not take part in this. That is a fact,” Lead Counsel Gomez said.
“That is the fact,” the witness answered.
When asked how Lang Karamo Suwareh was awarded, she stated that it happened like the previous contracts because they renew his contracts every month and award him contracts.
“They keep on extending his contract. Every month they extend his contract starting from the interim regime [Interim Committee of 2018] down to this period. Every month the Service Directorate renew his contract,” the witness said.
“But every month they make you fill forms as if the rules were followed,” Gomez told the witness.
The witness repeated her claim that “it was an oversight from our end.”
“All the other procurements from that time down were done in the same way,” the witness said.
“Do you think it will be fair to say it was an oversight when most of the contracts awarded to Lang Karamo Suwareh did not follow due process when it comes to procurement?” Lead Counsel Gomez said.
“I called our using of the procurement method as an oversight but not the contractual approvals. That is management responsibility,” she said.
She shifted the blame to the management of the KMC. She stressed that the contracts for Lang Karamo Suwareh were all approved by the KMC management on a monthly basis.
She was handed another payment voucher and she made the same statement. Her statement revolves around the fact that they filled documents for request for quotation, when in reality they single-source it to Lang Karamo Suwareh.
She was asked about other RFQ contracts that were awarded by the KMC. She testified that the decisions were made by herself, the CEO and the finance director.
“We sit over the bids and decide,” she said.
She admitted that generally the KMC does not follow the procurement processes. She testified that she was threatened by former CEO of KMC, Jaja Cham for standing her grounds that the procurement rules should be adhere to.
“There was an instance the CEO threatened me that I am challenging his authority to an extent that he took me to the deputy Mayor at that time threatening me that anytime I do that action again, I will be redeployed from my office. The CEO was Jaja Cham. He was so mad with me [because] we had so bitterly. I ensured that anytime such procurement comes I stood my ground. Although it was difficult, I stood my ground. He was extremely angry. He told me I will be redeployed anytime I try such again,” the witness said.
“Why will he be angry with you to that level? You are procurement and you are supposed to be independent,” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“He was not ready for our department to be independent. It was very hard,” the witness said.
The witness emphasized that there was interference in their work. She testified that she was moved to the finance unit in September 2020 because of her insistence for the procurement rules to be followed. When she was moved to the finance department, she was given a small table and she used to sit at a corner. She left the KMC for the Catholic Relief Services (CRC) where she is currently working.
