His admission that budgets were prepared based merely on conjectures and estimations came as a response to questions over budgets posed by the Local Government Commission of Inquiry’s (LCI) Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez.
Appearing before the Commission recently, Jallow first attempted to defend the payment of a so-called honorarium by the management of the Brikama Area Council to thirty-six councilors during Koriteh and Tobaski.
He was asked about the payments made to councilors twice every year (Koriteh and Tobaski) to councilors. He said they were payments for two activities, which included councilor’s involvement in revenue collection and their involvement during the festive periods. He testified that these were the basis for paying councilors honorarium.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez informed the Jallow that some of the councilors testified before that they were not involved in any activity. Jallow acknowledged such testimonies. However, he proceeded to claim that there was a budget line in the BAC budgets for the payment of honorarium.
The Commission observed an error in the budget as the column for honorarium was placed under the office of the CEO. Jallow did admit that the councilors were not under the office of the CEO but rather under the office of the Chairperson. He later admitted the payment was wrong.
Despite this error, Mam Sait Jallow insisted that they relied on that budget line to pay the honorarium.
Mam Sait took another dramatic turn, stating that the honorarium payment was “not specifically for the activities of the councilors, but any other activity created”.
Again, he also claimed that the honorarium was not supposed to be approved by the Ministry of Local Government since it was already captured in their budget. Consequently, the Commission asked for legal reference but he said he could not remember.
He was referred to the Local Government Act, which empowers the Ministry of Local Government to approve all allowances and any other payments.
Section 27 of the Local Government Act states that the Minister of Local Government shall, by regulations, determine allowances and any other benefits which shall be paid by a council to its members. After this section was read to him, Mam Sait Jallow held that allowance is different from honorarium.
Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez also cited the Financial and Accounting Manual for Local Government, which makes similar a provision for “allowances and any other payments”. The lead counsel emphasised that the law is clear on payments of allowances and any other payments.
He said the idea that the former CEO was putting up, that honorarium and allowance are different, was untenable as the law is clear on “allowance and any other benefits or payments”. Jallow eventually agreed and said the payment was wrong.
Following his admission that the payment was wrong, the lead counsel proceeded, questioning him on issues surrounding BAC budgets. The lead counsel referred Jallow to section 9 of the Local Government Finance and Audit Act, which carries the title ‘Approval of the Budget’.
Jallow testified, “The way we prepared the budget was not correct. It was just based on forecast.”
