Gambiaj.com, (KANIFING, THE GAMBIA) – The Local Government Commission of Inquiry has raised serious questions about financial management, procurement practices and political oversight at the Kanifing Municipal Council, including the role played by Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda in decisions surrounding major council projects.
The findings carry particular significance as Bensouda, who has served as KMC mayor since 2018, is now leader of UNITE and presidential candidate of Coalition 2026 in the December 5 election.
His role at KMC has consequently become part of a wider national debate over accountability in public office. Current reporting confirms that Bensouda has appealed the Commission’s adverse finding against him at the Court of Appeal.
Questions Over Mbalit Project
One of the most important areas of concern at KMC was the Mbalit waste-management project, under which the council acquired waste collection trucks.
Evidence before the Commission raised questions about the financing and contractual structure of the project. The Ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Buba Sanyang, told the inquiry that complaints concerning Mbalit included allegations of inflated vehicle prices, withdrawals from the project account, and repayment arrangements that were shifted to the council. He also referred to concerns over the way the project was pursued.
Bensouda himself later acknowledged before the Commission that the project could have been handled better. He accepted that the Ward Development Committees were initially supposed to finance the trucks but that KMC’s administration subsequently assumed responsibility.
He also acknowledged that, in hindsight, a feasibility study and clearer contractual arrangements should have been put in place before the project proceeded.
The Commission’s procurement evidence also identified broader weaknesses in KMC’s handling of major projects. In the municipal bus project, investigators found inconsistencies over whether the procurement was for goods, services, or works and questioned the approval of the award to Noflaye Transport Ltd in circumstances where required bid security had not been established.
Procurement Concerns Extend Beyond Mbalit
The Commission examined a number of KMC procurement files, including the proposed municipal bus service, the Bakoteh waste-processing project, market infrastructure, digital revenue collection, Town Hall furnishing, wheelie-bin procurement, and the municipal library.
In the Bakoteh waste-processing project, the inquiry heard that KMC proceeded with an expression-of-interest process without prior GPPA approval, the required forms, or a feasibility study.
The Commission also found problems in the market infrastructure procurement, including inadequate bid security, unclear financial responsiveness, and post-bid negotiations.
The digital revenue collection project also came under scrutiny. The evidence indicated that KMC mixed different procurement procedures, used incorrect forms, and allowed one bidder, EcoTech, to conduct a free trial and additional demonstrations not clearly provided for in the bidding documents. The Commission heard that this created unequal treatment between bidders.
The KETP wheelie-bin procurement raised another concern: the contract reportedly provided for a 60 per cent advance payment, while the applicable regulations capped advance payments at 50 per cent and required GPPA approval above 20 per cent. The evidence indicated that no such GPPA approval had been seen.
Taken together, the Commission’s legal analysis described a wider pattern of procurement failures, including departures from competitive tendering, inadequate procurement planning, missing documentation, and weaknesses in Contracts Committee structures. It said such failures could expose officials to personal liability where negligence or misconduct resulted in unauthorized or unsupported expenditure.
The Bensouda Question
The most politically consequential issue, however, is the Commission’s finding concerning Bensouda personally.
According to his appeal against the Commission’s finding, the Commission concluded that he had exercised political and executive influence in a manner capable of causing or sustaining irregular commitments, unauthorized expenditure, irregular project direction, and extra-statutory financial exposure.
Bensouda is challenging that conclusion before the Court of Appeal. His central argument is that he was not KMC’s accounting officer and therefore had no legal authority to authorize council payments. He argues that expenditure was authorized by the council’s accounting officers and that the Commission did not identify the specific payments over which he allegedly exercised improper influence.
That distinction is important. The Commission’s own framework recognizes that the CEO is the administrative head and accounting officer responsible for the custody, control, and lawful expenditure of council funds.
At the same time, the inquiry was expressly empowered to examine whether mayors and other political office holders became involved, directly or indirectly, in policy implementation and day-to-day council management.
The legal issue now before the courts is therefore not simply whether Bensouda personally signed payment instructions. It is also where the boundary lies between a mayor’s legitimate political and policy leadership and the statutory responsibilities of the council’s administrative and accounting officers.
What The Commission Recommends
The Commission recommends that matters disclosing prima facie criminal conduct be referred for investigation and prosecution, that misapplied public funds be recovered through civil proceedings and surcharges, and that officers who breached statutory duties face disciplinary action.
It also calls for stronger internal controls, institutional reform, and legislative or regulatory changes to close accountability gaps.
Proposed referrals include the Attorney General and Inspector General of Police for criminal matters, the Ministry responsible for Local Government for governance issues, the Local Government Service Commission for disciplinary matters, and the National Audit Office for audit follow-up.
Importantly, the supplied 106-page document does not itself set out a final KMC-specific surcharge, criminal referral, or disciplinary recommendation against Bensouda.
The adverse finding against Bensouda is instead documented through his subsequent Court of Appeal challenge.
The report nevertheless leaves a substantial institutional message for KMC: procurement planning, documentation, competitive tendering, project feasibility, financial controls, and the separation of political leadership from administrative authority all require stronger safeguards.
For Bensouda, the issue has now moved beyond the municipal council. As he campaigns for the presidency on a platform that emphasizes governance, accountability, and institutional reform, his challenge to the Commission’s findings places his own record at KMC under judicial scrutiny at the same time that he seeks national office.
Leave a Reply