Malick Jeng, a revenue collector for the Brikama Area Council, has admitted before the Local Government Commission of Inquiry (LGCI) that he has suppressed Council’s funds. The suppressed funds were from his collections.
Malick Jeng is a brother to Finance Director Alagie Jeng.
The LGCI was established to conduct a full and impartial investigation into local government councils and connected matters by reviewing their financial and administrative activities to enhance transparency and accountability. The Commisison is now doing institutional hearing on the Brikama Area Council (BAC) after having completed hearing on the Basse Area Council, Janjanbureh Area Council and Mansakonko Area Council.
The written statement of the witness and the additional statement dated 21st November 2023 and 22nd November 2023 respectively were both tendered and admitted in evidence. The appointment letter of the witness was also admitted in evidence.
The witness said he has only one cash book from 2018 to date. A cash book is the book that keeps the record of the collections made, the amount, dates and other relevant information. The cash book was admitted in evidence.
Malick Jeng said he works under the valued properties unit as a revenue collector. The witness added that he has been in this unit for the period under investigation (May 2018 to January 2023).
9th October 2020 – the witness collected Fourteen Thousand Dalasi (D14000), but it was not traced. The witness claimed that at the time they did not start depositing the monies in the bank. Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez reminded the witness of his statement that they began depositing in the banks when they began using the digital revenue collection device. The witness confirmed it. Lead Counsel Gomez reminded the witness of the Council’s memo that was circulated instructing the collectors to deposit their collections in the bank. The witness did not dispute this fact.
Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness that the idea he is putting up was wrong. He made reference to the bank statements of the Brikama Area Council to show that the witness had made some deposits in the account in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The witness was given the bank statements and he was able to see his deposits. The witness was able to confirm the deposits. Counsel Gomez told him the idea that he started depositing in late 2020 was wrong. The witness admitted.
He was asked to account for the D14,000. The witness has a receipt but the payment was not traced in bank.
“I cannot understand. I have made the payment in the bank. I don’t understand the computers now,” the witness said.
“How can you fault the computers? What happened to the money?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
The witness could not account for it.
2nd July 2022 – the witness collected D6,000 and was issued a receipt by the Principal Cashier. The money could not be traced. The witness after checking was able to traced it from the account.
25th March 2021 – the witness was issued a receipt of D19,000, but the amount could not be traced. After checking, they were able to trace was D15,000. The witness claimed that he deposited the whole sum. He blamed the bank. He said the bank made the mistake. He was asked about the D4,000 balance and he insisted that the bank made the mistake. He claimed that he deposited the whole D19,000. He claimed that he has records to prove that. He was given time to bring it on Wednesday (today). He did not bring it.
8th April 2021 – the witness collected D9,000 but the amount was not traced in the account. The amount was not traced from account. The witness admitted that he did not pay the money in the bank.
15 July 2021 – the witness collect D10,000 and the whole money was not deposited in the account. The witness only paid D6500 and when asked why he made part payment, he could not provide any answers. He claimed that he deposited the whole sum, but following questions by the Lead Counsel, Jeng said “I did not deposit the balance.” He admitted that he did not deposit the whole sum he collected.
The witness was asked about his collection of 10th February 2022 for an amount of D14,000. The deposit slip that the witness attached in his cash book indicated that he only deposited D7,000.
“Why is that?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked for four times.
The witness was silent and did not provide an answer.
“You deposited half of the money you collect,” Counsel Gomez told the witness.
“Yes, I accept. I did not deposit the money,” Jeng answered.
He said he cannot recall where he expended the money, but he was certain that he used it on his private affairs.
28th October 2021 – the witness collected D19,600 and he was issued a receipt by the Principal Cashier. The Commission noted that he deposited D17,600. The balance was D2000. The witness checked from his cash book and the deposit slip. He claimed that the Principal Cashier made the mistake. He was told the record in his cash book also indicated that he collected D19,600. He accepted responsibility for the underpayment.
4 November 2021 – the witness collected D10,000 but only deposited D5,000. There was an outstanding fee of D5,000.
“It is correct. I deposited D5000 and kept the other D5000,” the witness said.
“Mr Jeng, you know that there were many transactions you did that you did not deposit the entire collections. Those transactions appeared suspicious and you are here to provide explanations,” Lead Counsel Gomez told the witness.
16th June 2022 – the witness collected D10,000 and recorded in his cash book that the funds were deposited in the Trust Bank account. Lead Counsel Gomez told him that the money was not traced in the account. The witness was given the Trust Bank statement of account of the Brikama Area Council to look. The bank statement has a depositor name as Malick Jagne while the witness is Malick Jeng. He claimed that the bank made a mistake. After a review on the transaction, it was confirmed that the deposit was made by him and he was cleared – meaning the amount was traced.
28th July 2022 – the witness collected D22,000 but the witness deposited D13,600. The witness explained that the money was used to pay rent and purchase of chairs for the office they were occupying. The witness said four chairs were purchased for D2400 from DK Enterprise and the rental fee was D6000 for six months. He added that the place they used to occupy belongs to the Alkalo. The witness said the remaining D2000 was used to rent chairs. When asked who authorised him to make the payment, the witness said he could not recall whose time was as the manager but he used to get instruction from his line manager. The witness said he intermediated to get the place for rent. He added that the CEO and the Director of Finance were informed. The witness provided a letter purportedly from the wife of the Alkalo requesting payment. The Commission noted that the letter was not address to any person as it came with the heading “To Whom it May Concern.” Malick Jeng said he was authorised by the Director of Finance to make the payment. He testified that he was the one who saw the chairs in the market and asked the salesman to keep them for him. He added that he came to the Council and obtained approval to purchase the chairs for their office. He admitted that he does not work in the procurement unit and it was not his responsibility to purchase the chairs.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez informed the witness that the writing in the letter and the receipt are the same. The witness disagreed. Counsel Gomez referred the witness to section 406 of the Financial Manual for Local
“Government Councils which makes mandatory provision for all collections to be deposited in the council’s account. The witness admitted that he did not adhere to the law, but obtained verbal instruction to expend the money. He said there was no written instruction given to him to spend the money. The witness admitted that he is responsible for the missing monir.
On the 8th September 2022 – the witness collected D29,000 but he deposited only D9,000 leaving the balance of D20,000. The witness could not provide an answer. He was given the Bank Statement to check and after this exercise, the witness said he did not deposit it. Some minutes later, the witness said the D20,000 was paid through 4 cheques – each D5000. He was asked for the cheque details but the witness could not provide anything. He was also asked the person who paid the cheque and he mentioned one man from Sinchu. He was asked the contact details and the witness asked for time to return home to search for it.
