Draft KMC Commission Report: Mayor Bensouda Faces No Personal Sanctions or Public Office Ban

Jainaba Bah, Chairperson of the LG Commission presenting report to President Barrow.

By Staff Writer

A draft report by the Local Government Commission of Inquiry into the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) concludes that while the country’s most densely populated municipality was marked by weak financial controls and administrative lapses, it does not recommend personal sanctions or a ban from public office for Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda.

The draft, obtained by Kerr Fatou, depicts an institution burdened less by individual wrongdoing than by entrenched governance deficiencies. Although the final report has yet to be released, the document’s findings suggest its central conclusions are unlikely to shift substantially.

At the core of the Commission’s assessment is a distinction between personal culpability and systemic failure. Across a wide body of testimony, investigators found limited evidence of direct personal enrichment or fraud in several cases. Instead, they identified recurring structural weaknesses that exposed public funds to risk and undermined accountability.

The report points to persistent shortcomings in record-keeping, internal auditing, staffing practices, and financial oversight. In the Commission’s view, these deficiencies collectively fall short of the standards required under the Local Government Act, the Local Government Finance and Audit Act, and the Public Finance Act.

Testimony from the Council’s Director of Finance, Dr. Alieu Keita, describes a formally organized revenue system divided among licensing, rates, and market units. But the Commission found that the system’s design left gaps in control. In some instances, particularly involving arrears, payments were collected in the field before official receipts were issued, creating vulnerabilities in the custody and traceability of public funds.

Oversight, the report notes, tended to focus on aggregate revenue performance rather than transaction-level verification, limiting the Council’s ability to detect underreporting or delayed remittance. These risks were compounded by poor records management, with key financial documents, including bank reconciliation statements, proving difficult to retrieve during the inquiry.

Similar concerns emerged in procurement practices. Evidence from the council’s procurement unit showed that key safeguards—such as documented market surveys—were absent for extended periods, weakening the basis for value-for-money assessments. Procurement advice was often delivered verbally, rather than recorded in writing, raising further concerns about transparency and auditability.

The Commission also questioned whether all procurement transactions passed through the appropriate institutional channels, suggesting the possibility that some activities may have occurred outside the formal regulatory framework. In high-value acquisitions, including the purchase of compactor trucks, the report found that assessments of value relied more on procedural compliance than on independent market verification.

The draft further scrutinizes the Council’s decision to outsource debt recovery to private firms, noting that KMC already maintained an internal unit responsible for similar functions. While officials cited compliance with procurement procedures, the Commission found limited evidence that the outsourcing delivered measurable benefits.

Concerns extend as well to council-linked entities established during the period under review. The report notes a lack of clarity surrounding their governance structures, funding arrangements and accountability, and calls for further documentation before definitive conclusions can be reached.

Within the Council’s Compliance Directorate, the Commission identified a blurring of institutional roles. Although tasked with oversight, compliance officers were at times involved directly in revenue collection exercises, an approach that the report says undermines the principle of separation of duties. While such interventions reportedly yielded short-term gains, they risk eroding accountability and encouraging reliance on corrective enforcement rather than routine compliance.

The department itself was described as chronically under-resourced, limiting its ability to carry out its mandate effectively.

In the Planning and Development Department, the Commission found gaps in project documentation and procurement practices, including instances of single-bid tenders awarded without re-advertisement. It also highlighted the absence of a comprehensive and up-to-date property register, with the Council continuing to rely on valuation data dating back to 2005.

The Department of Services, responsible for waste management, was cited for lapses in financial documentation. In one case, records relating to expenditures on equipment used at the Bakoteh dumpsite could not be located, raising concerns about accountability, even though alternative documentation was later provided.

The report also documents an incident in which a junior staff member was allegedly confronted by a senior official over testimony given to the Commission. Such conduct, it notes, could undermine the integrity of the inquiry process and contravene protections afforded to witnesses.

Taken together, the findings depict a Council with formal administrative structures but lacking the systems and controls necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance with the law.

While the Commission stops short of recommending personal sanctions against Mayor Bensouda, the draft makes clear that the failures it identifies are institutional in nature. Its final report, when released, is expected to place greater emphasis on structural reforms aimed at strengthening governance across local councils in The Gambia.