KMC Inquiry Finds Former Chief Executive Personally Liable for Financial Misconduct

By Staff Writer

A draft report from the Commission of Inquiry into Local Government Councils and Connected Matters has found that Sainabou Martin Sonko, former Chief Executive Officer of the Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC), bears primary statutory responsibility for serious financial governance failures during her tenure. The report, obtained by Kerr Fatou, documents a range of misconduct, including unauthorized loan guarantees, widespread procurement non-compliance, failure to act on suspected revenue theft, and Mrs. Sonko’s own admission that she retained a D30,000 payment from a contractor—an approach she herself recognized as an attempt to corrupt her.

The commission was established under Section 200 of the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia and Legal Notice No. 7 of 2023. It conducted public hearings from late 2024 through September 2025, examining the area council’s operations between May 2018 and January 2023. Its final report, certified by Chairperson Jainaba Bah and four fellow commissioners, was submitted to President Adama Barrow on May 11th, 2026. 

Sainabou Martin Sonko served as chief executive officer of the Kanifing Municipal Council—the statutory head of administration and principal accounting officer of The Gambia’s most densely populated local authority. Under Section 43 of the Local Government Act 2002, she bore primary legal responsibility for ensuring that all expenditure was lawful, properly documented, and compliant with procurement regulations. 

Among the commission’s more serious findings was Mrs. Sonko’s personal execution of loan guarantees and domiciliation undertakings on behalf of the Council without obtaining the required Council resolutions.

The report stated that she signed guarantees in favor of the KMC Staff Welfare Association and KMC Staff Credit Union—including a D800,000 guarantee at Trust Bank and additional commitments at AGIB Bank. She acknowledged before the commission that no formal council resolution was ever passed, no finance committee review was conducted, and no legal opinion, risk assessment, or written authorization was obtained prior to the council being bound by these obligations.

The Commission determined this constituted a direct breach of Sections 43 and 54 of the Local Government Finance and Audit Act 2004 and concluded that officers who executed such guarantees bear personal responsibility for the resulting unauthorized financial exposure.

In a significant admission, Mrs. Sonko confirmed before the commission that a contractor, Mr. Danso, trading as Almot Real Estate, offered her money in connection with advance payment requests. She stated that she declined a larger initial approach but acknowledged that D30,000 was subsequently left in her office and was not immediately returned.

The Commission recorded this in its Consolidated Loss and Recovery Matrix as an admitted receipt attributed directly to Mrs. Sonko, with recovery status listed as “Not returned.” It found that her failure to promptly return the funds or report the incident was, at a minimum, imprudent given the circumstances. The related land transaction — in which the Council committed D2,128,752 to the same contractor — proceeded without ownership of the land ever being secured.

One of the most significant institutional failures of the period concerns the Council’s response to the discovery of receipt deletions from its revenue management system.

An internal memorandum — admitted as Exhibit LGC/SMS/KMC/011 — confirmed that records totalling D297,941.43 had been deleted from the Council’s Matrix system, representing funds collected but never banked. Mrs Sonko acknowledged receiving this memorandum. The Commission found that she took no disciplinary action, initiated no recovery proceedings, and made no referral to any relevant authority — despite approximately seven months elapsing between the detection of the irregularity and her departure from office. The Commission characterised this as institutional failure and noted that applicable law empowers the relevant authorities to surcharge officers responsible for such losses.

The Commission documented a sustained pattern of procurement non-compliance under Mrs Sonko’s administration, including:

-Payments exceeding D13.9 million to contractor Lang Karamo Suwareh & Sons, made without job completion certificates, processed through multiple banks via multi-cheque encashments.

-Payments to General Procurement Services were processed on the basis of photocopied documents; Mrs Sonko later determined that certain road works paid for were either defective or had not been carried out.

-A predominance of single-sourcing: D18.9 million in Council procurement in 2021 alone was conducted by this method, despite its status under law as a narrow exception rather than a permissible default.

-Systematic bypassing of the Contracts Committee, with informal procurement structures operating outside the statutory architecture.

The Commission found these practices to constitute breaches of the Gambia Public Procurement Act 2014 and the GPPA Regulations 2019. Mrs Sonko told the Commission that much of this pressure-driven procurement was justified internally on grounds of urgency, including contracts to clear illegal dumpsites.

Throughout her testimony, Mrs Sonko described a governance environment she characterised as politically dominated and hostile to independent administration. She stated that she was required to attend daily early-morning briefings at the Mayor’s office, that she lacked independent authority to approve activities without the Mayor’s prior knowledge, and that virtually all payment approvals — regardless of value — were escalated upward. She described the environment as one of pervasive executive pressure and cited her suspension and subsequent removal as evidence of the obstruction she encountered.

The Commission acknowledged this context but was unequivocal in its legal conclusion: political pressure does not extinguish the statutory liability of an accounting officer. Under the Local Government Finance and Audit Act 2004, the CEO retains personal responsibility for safeguarding public funds and ensuring compliance with financial procedures, regardless of political direction. Verbal instructions or handwritten authorisations from the Mayor do not constitute lawful authorisation within the meaning of the Financial Regulations 2016.

The report stated: “The described decision-making environment supports a finding of weakened administrative independence but does not legally absolve accounting-officer responsibility.”

A further concern relates to Mrs Sonko’s personal receipt of shares in the KMC Municipal Transport Company following the forfeiture of shares by private partner NOFLAYE, which had failed to inject committed capital. The Board Chair acknowledged before the Commission that the Board did not scrutinise this allotment and that its purportedly temporary character was never formalised in corporate records.

The Commission found that this raised a prima facie case of defective corporate governance and that share allotments to senior management without proper authorisation, consideration, or disclosure created a risk of abuse of the corporate form in an entity backed by public resources.

The Commission made the following key determinations bearing on Mrs Sonko’s accountability:

Primary statutory liability: As CEO and accounting officer throughout the review period, Mrs Sonko bears primary responsibility under Section 43 of the Local Government Act 2002 for all financial control failures, procurement non-compliance, unauthorised loan commitments, and revenue custody failures occurring during her tenure.

Surcharge exposure: Failures attributable to accounting officers — including unauthorised expenditure, documentation gaps, and failure to act on identified irregularities — attract surcharge consideration under Sections 70–74 of the Public Finance Act 2014, which provide for personal liability against officers whose acts or omissions result in financial loss or misapplication of public resources.

Bribe receipt: The admitted retention of D30,000 is recorded in the Commission’s Consolidated Loss and Recovery Matrix with recovery status listed as “Not returned,” with Mrs Sonko named as the primary liable person.

Almot land transaction: The D2,128,752 commitment to the same contractor — executed without ownership of the land being secured — is recorded with Mrs Sonko and Babucarr Sanyang as co-responsible parties, with recovery status listed as “No ownership secured.”

Institutional liability: The Commission concluded that financial irregularities at KMC “arose not from isolated administrative lapses but from a breakdown of statutory financial control mechanisms,” collectively constituting gross administrative negligence, unauthorised financial commitment, breach of fiduciary duty, and institutional control failure — attracting surcharge consideration, administrative disciplinary review, and referral for further investigative action under applicable financial and criminal accountability statutes.

The Commission’s final report has been submitted to the relevant authorities. Its recommendations encompass corrective administrative measures, surcharge recovery actions, disciplinary proceedings, institutional reforms, and, where appropriate, criminal referrals.

The report does not itself impose criminal penalties — that authority rests with prosecutors and the courts. However, by formally identifying Mrs Sonko as a primary liable party across multiple categories of financial loss, establishing surcharge exposure under the Public Finance Act, and recording an admitted bribe receipt without restitution, it provides a substantial evidentiary basis for civil recovery proceedings and potential criminal investigation.