The Counsel began by outlining a deep dive into the recovery accounts record submitted earlier by the Accountant General’s Department (AGD) and updated figures from the Central Bank of The Gambia (CBG). She put to the witness that The Governor had testified that activity continued on these accounts as recently as October and the first week of November.
Macauley admitted from the start that some documents previously requested were still missing. She asked the Committee to specify which records remained outstanding so her office could locate and submit them. “Maybe because it has been a while since these activities took place, we would be really glad to know where we’re falling short and we’ll do our best to make good the outstanding.”
She restated her earlier testimony on the AGD’s role in the Janneh Commission sales. Their main duty, she said, was providing cashiers AGD staff deployed to collect funds during the sale of vehicles and other assets. This also included banking the money collected. The Commission had insisted on AGD cashiers so Commission staff themselves would not handle large sums of cash, especially during regional sales.
The counsel then shifted to the sub-treasury deposits in Brikama and Janjangbureh. Because staff in the field could not move cash to the Central Bank immediately, the funds were first deposited in regional sub-treasury accounts.
Macauley explained that according to government procedure, any funds entering these sub-treasury accounts including sale proceeds and unrelated government revenue were automatically swept into the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF). Afterward, the AGD reconciliation team was responsible for sorting out which amounts belonged to the Janneh Commission and transferring those to the designated Janneh asset recovery account.
When asked why separate asset recovery accounts were opened at CBG in the first place.
Macauley said the purpose was for traceability. Keeping the funds separate made it easier to account for exactly what was collected from Jammeh asset sales.
The counsel put to her that the bank statement showed an opening balance of D28,750 before the first sale deposits arrived between 2 October and 16 October 2018. Investigators had calculated that D6,069,000 entered the account during that period.
Macauley, however, cautioned that not every deposit on the statement was related to Janneh sales. She pointed to entries such as “cash deposit by Ousman B.Y. Jarju,” explaining: “I cannot attribute that to Janneh sales.” She stressed that the account served multiple purposes, and only entries labeled specifically as Jammeh asset sales could be easily identified.
Counsel pressed her on how to distinguish Janneh-related funds from other deposits.
Macauley replied that a detailed exercise with the reconciliation team would be needed. She reminded the Committee that she was representing the office, but she had not been directly involved in the sale operations or reconciliations.
Counsel asked whether the AGD had done any reconciliation on the account.
Macauley confirmed that reconciliations existed but not with her at the hearing. The chair and counsel agreed that it would be better for AGD reconciliation officers to sit with the Committee’s financial investigators to compare records.
Counsel then referred to the reconciliation sheet attached to her submission. Investigators calculated that total deposits amounted to D5,819,000 for the Jammeh sales. They found that D4,981,950 was transferred to the CRF. But according to the reconciliation sheet, the amount transferred to the Janneh Commission Asset Recovery Account was D5,818,000, leaving a shortfall of D1,000.
Macauley disagreed: “That is not what I have,” she said, insisting that she was quoting directly from her office’s own submission.
Counsel reiterated that she was relying on the reconciliation sheet provided, while the investigators were comparing both the statement and the reconciliation independently.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
