Mustapha Batchilly, CEO of Banjul City Council
By Fatou Sillah
Mustapha Batchilly, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Banjul City Council (BCC), appeared before the local government commission of inquiry, where he acknowledged committing several financial infractions and failing to properly oversee procurement processes during his tenure. Batchilly also admitted to authorizing unlawful payments.
During the proceedings, lead counsel Patrick Gomez questioned Batchilly about his knowledge of the legislation that governs the operation of local government councils. Batchilly confirmed his awareness of the regulations, adding that the council only recently established a fully functional procurement unit. He further noted that the mayor and councillors were supposed to hold monthly general meetings, with various committees responsible for specific activities. Batchilly also clarified that he served as the head of the contracts committee and that these committees typically convened at least once a month.
In response to allegations that he had hired an individual to write meeting minutes, Batchilly denied the accusation. He explained that the mayor frequently missed senior management meetings and that, at times, he would intentionally engage in arguments with the mayor during meetings to ensure that their disagreements were overheard by others.Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez stated, “The evidence we have here suggests that you acted in total disregard to the laws, and you were a rubber stamp.”
The witness was questioned regarding the distribution of donations. He stated that the donations were made on behalf of the council and noted that the director of finance would exercise personal discretion in deciding how much to allocate.
“You were just rubber-stamping at the BCC,” Gomez remarked.
Gomez testified that, based on the evidence presented to the commission, Batchilly routinely approved the exact amounts requested by the mayor without raising any objections.
When asked, the witness was unable to provide documentation showing that he had ever reduced any of the requested sums. He was instructed to obtain and present such supporting evidence.
The commission provided the witness with a voucher—an imprest—for D400,000.“The problem is that you had the audacity to give the Lord Mayor D400,000 to be given to people,” Gomez said.
The witness acknowledged that no imprest ledger existed.
“Wasn’t it your duty to ensure proper procedures were followed?” Gomez asked.
The witness responded that it “should be” his responsibility.
Unimpressed, Gomez rejected the vague reply. “I’m not accepting evasive answers like ‘should be.’” He then presented the financial manual for local government councils, which explicitly outlines the requirement for an impress system.
“What is here in the voucher should be recorded somewhere,” Gomez said.
“Yes,” the witness said.
The witness acknowledged the violations. He stated that he approved the imprest without first ensuring the required conditions were met. He also confirmed that the Mayor is not considered an officer of the council and admitted that the circumstances did not constitute an emergency.
“It shows that the allocation was itself unlawful. It did not follow due process. Is that true?” Gomez asked.
“Yes, that is true,” the witness said.
The witness acknowledged that no imprest ledger existed. He also admitted to other procedural violations, including the failure to post the imprest properly.
“You have failed in your duty as Chief Executive Officer,” Gomez stated.“Was there retirement?” Gomez asked.
“No, there was no retirement,” the witness said.
“Whose fault is it? The Mayor’s? The finance director’s? Yours?” Gomez asked.
“We all share responsibility,” the witness replied.
“But the law holds you accountable,” Gomez countered.
The witness responded that he has gained insight from the discussions, noting that he is not a financial expert.
“Regarding the procedures, we have come to terms on that. I have learnt,” the witness said.
“I don’t have a counterargument to this,” the witness added.
The witness’s written statements dated 4 May 2024 and 22 January 2025 were submitted and accepted into evidence at this stage.
The witness testified that the BCC operated through several committees, namely: Finance, Establishment, Development and Planning, and Contracts.
“Does the Mayor handle procurement matters?” Gomez inquired.“She normally makes the request,” the witness said.
The witness was questioned about the procedures followed in procuring LED lights from Senegal. According to the witness, the Mayor presented the matter to the council and informed them that she intended to consult her counterpart in Dakar. Following the council meeting, the Mayor contacted the Mayor of Dakar to discuss the issue. She then dispatched her protocol officer to Dakar to follow up on the matter.
The total amount spent was 1.29 million dalasi.
“Did any procurement procedures take place?” Gomez inquired.
“The procurement process was not followed,” the witness replied.
“Why was that?” Gomez pressed.“It was because they were not procured in the country. They were procured from Dakar,” the Witness said.
The witness claimed that he was “carried away” by the “precarious condition” of the city’s lightning system. However, Gomez, the Lead Counsel, disputed this statement. He directed the witness’s attention to the Gambia Public Procurement Authority (GPPA)’s refusal to approve the transaction. The rejection was based on several reasons outlined in the letters sent, including the lack of a procurement method, absence of conflict-of-interest declarations, unsigned forms, and various other omissions.
Gomez remarked, “Your application has been denied—rejected. Yet, you still submit a procurement request involving Council funds amounting to D1.29 million.”
The witness explained that he felt vulnerable, which led him to approve the transaction. He added that the pressure was the main reason behind his decision.“Was it a wise decision?” Gomez asked.
“No,” the witness said
The witness stated that the procedure followed was incorrect. Gomez pointed out that the procurement process was vulnerable to fraudulent activities. He inquired whether the witness had received a quotation from the supplier in Dakar, to which the witness responded that they could not recall. Additionally, the witness acknowledged that no procurement documents were available.
“In any case, since it did not pass through the procurement procedures, it is possible that we purchase at a higher price,” the witness said.
Gomez explained that the procurement laws (including regulations and rules) are designed to strengthen due process, ensuring that purchases deliver value for money. These laws also promote transparent and efficient procurement, guarantee accountability, foster fair competition, and work to prevent fraud, corruption, and other unethical practices in public procurement.
“If you do not adhere to the processes, someone must be benefiting, whether it’s you, the mayor, or the person she sent to Senegal,” Gomez remarked.
“That’s absolutely correct,” the witness confirmed.
The witness mentioned a payment of 2.3 million to Fatou Mbenga for Refela activities, as well as numerous other expenses related to the same.
When Chairperson Jainaba Bah raised concerns about expenditures lacking supporting documentation, the witness admitted that the payments were indeed made without proper documentation and acknowledged that such actions were improper.
The witness emphasized that it is always good practice to establish clear thresholds for payment approvals in accordance with the law.“For us, we don’t go by that. We don’t have thresholds,” the witness said.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez referenced the Financial Manual, emphasizing the requirement for councils to establish thresholds. The witness highlighted the importance of these thresholds, noting that the CEO has the authority to approve certain amounts, while payments above a specific threshold require approval from the general council.
When asked whether he used to seek the Mayor’s clearance before making payments, the witness confirmed this, stating, “Yes,” and added, “We would always discuss among ourselves before processing significant payments.”Who has the final say?” Gomez asked
“We decide,” the witness answered.
He mentioned that when the Mayor was set to travel to Kenya for the Refela elections, the Mayor suggested paying members of the organization. However, he declined, explaining they weren’t Council employees. In response, Gomez pointed out that similar payments had been made to Refela members within the country for their activities.
“How do you explain the difference?” Gomez inquired.
The witness responded that the cost of the trip was significantly higher compared to the expenses within the country. He also noted that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between Refela and BCC.
He referred to another instance when the Mayor requested that he fund the entire tournament in the city. He declined, offering only partial payment, as he believed the committee should also cover some expenses and raise their own funds. Gomez remarked that the witness had been funding religious group council activities, despite these groups having committees capable of fundraising. The witness responded by stating that religious groups were treated differently from others. Gomez countered that all spending should align with the established budget.
Gomez attempted to demonstrate that the witness had been engaging in actions contrary to his previous stance.
The witness confirmed that the BCC has two main accounts, at BSIC and Trust Bank, and was asked to provide the corresponding bank statements.
Regarding the Banjul-Ostend project, the witness explained that they held accounts at BSIC, later switching to Eco Bank, and that he was a signatory for all the accounts.
The witness explained that the former Director of Finance, Momodou Camara, was replaced because there was another signatory who could act in the Director of Finance’s absence. The witness also noted that Camara’s removal from the Steering Committee occurred because both he and the finance manager were serving on the committee at the same time.
“It wasn’t possible for both of them to be there,” the witness said, which led to the decision to remove Camara. Additionally, Gomez stated that Camara’s removal was due to his lack of cooperation.“That is part of it,” the witness said.
Gomez explained that the finance director was removed because he refused to approve a payment of 900,000 dalasi intended for visibility purposes. He also mentioned that the finance manager was added as a signatory to take the director’s place. Although the finance manager reports to the finance director, the director’s refusal to sign due to the lack of supporting documents led to the manager being assigned the responsibility of signing the cheques.
The witness, however, disagreed with the idea that the director’s removal was linked to his refusal to sign the 900,000 dalasi cheque. Gomez countered by suggesting that both the finance director’s and finance manager’s testimonies supported the reason for the director’s removal from the committee.“D900,000 for visibility. What kind of visibility is that?” Gomez asked.
There were two letters, both dated February 8, 2022, written on the same day by the witness to the former finance director. In these letters, the CEO expressed that the finance director’s reasoning seemed “illogical” and accused him of causing delays in the project’s implementation.
The witness testified that, at the beginning of the project, proper procedures were not being followed.
Lead Counsel Gomez took some time to review the legal sources of council funds, which include grants and donations, and emphasized that the law includes safeguards that need to be adhered to.
The witness was informed that he was accompanied by his deputy, the director of administration, while the director of finance was with the finance manager on the Steering Committee. He mentioned that the witness removed the finance director (who was the head of the finance department) but allowed himself to remain on the committee.“Your actions were not in line with rules and regulations because he is the one mandated to sign,” Gomez said.
There were two letters, both dated February 8, 2022, written on the same day by the witness to the former finance director. In these letters, the CEO expressed that the finance director’s reasoning seemed “illogical” and accused him of causing delays in the project’s implementation.
The witness testified that, at the beginning of the project, proper procedures were not being followed.
Lead Counsel Gomez took some time to review the legal sources of council funds, which include grants and donations, and emphasized that the law includes safeguards that need to be adhered to.
The witness was informed that he was accompanied by his deputy, the director of administration, while the finance director was paired with the finance manager on the Steering Committee. The witness acknowledged that although he removed the finance director (who led the finance department) from the committee, he himself stayed on.
The conversation then shifted to the audit of the Banjul-Ostend project. The witness explained that two audits had been conducted – one by the National Audit Office and another by an international audit firm. It was revealed that D259,000 had been spent on mobile phones. The witness admitted that the procurement process for these purchases did not adhere to GPPA rules and regulations. He conceded that no proper guidelines were followed and that the purchase was made through a single-source arrangement. Additionally, D1,108,500 was spent on media coverage and town hall meetings, which were not part of the original project budget. The witness acknowledged that these expenses were not included in the budget but were funded through the project’s indirect cost allocation.
“What do you do when a budget was not factored in?” Gomez asked.
The witness revised their previous statement, clarifying that they were referring to the visibility budget rather than the indirect cost. Gomez inquired whether the Mayor’s town hall meeting was included in the project’s budget, as auditors had reviewed the budget and found it excluded. The witness was asked to present the project’s budget.
The witness explained that the town hall was considered a service delivery within the scope of the BCC and the project. Gomez countered, stating that the town hall was politically motivated, and asked the witness to provide supporting evidence and outline the issues discussed during the town hall meetings. The witness noted that 300 t-shirts had been printed at a cost of D82,000. Gomez requested the witness to specify what was printed on the t-shirts, to which the witness responded that they couldn’t recall.“At this juncture, I am lost,” he said.
Gomez reiterated his question about whether the t-shirts and banners were related to the project, requesting the witness to present the corresponding evidence.
On February 14, 2022, the BCC made a payment of D89,000 to Sabs Multimedia for renting logistical materials related to the town hall meeting, which the witness explained was for the transportation of large screens.
Additionally, D30,000 was paid to Kerr Fatou for the live broadcast coverage of the second town hall.“Should the Mayor be engaged in procurement?” Gomez asked.
“No,” the witness answered.
“Was the Mayor doing procurement?” Gomez asked.
“Yes,” the witness answered.
“Was that proper?” Gomez asked.
“No, it was not proper,” the witness answered.
The witness concurred with Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez that the Mayor should have been aware that interference in procurement matters was inappropriate.
Regarding the loans given to the Steering Committee members, the witness stated that there was unanimous agreement to grant each member a loan of D33,000, which was intended for both the project team and the Steering Committee members. However, only one month of payment was deducted, leaving the loan largely unpaid. The witness also mentioned that while each member contributed D3,000, the remaining D30,000 has yet to be repaid.
Batchilly acknowledged that the decision to issue loans to themselves was a mistake. He explained that the approval came under “pressure,” as Tobaski was approaching, and they required funds for personal support.
In relation to the accounting software, Batchilly noted that D232,000 was paid for the software, which was never delivered, as confirmed by the audit report. He pointed out that the software had been recommended by a former finance manager, but when Muhammad Cham arrived, he found it unsuitable because it did not align with the project’s reporting requirements.