The Office of the President, which includes Cabinet, functions as the central coordinating authority for government policy, interministerial cooperation and high-level executive decisions. Because of this role, the committee stressed that its proper functioning is essential to ensuring lawful policy implementation and effective coordination across ministries, departments and agencies.
But the inquiry found early obstacles when it attempted to examine the role of the Office. According to the committee, the Office initially failed to provide adequate records needed to clarify key decisions and events linked to the management of the assets identified by the inquiry into Jammeh’s financial dealings.
Lawmakers said the lack of documentation limited their ability to obtain timely and complete institutional accounts of the matters under review.
That situation only improved after summonses were issued and the Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service appeared before the committee. Following that appearance, the Office provided more comprehensive documentation that helped the committee advance its work.
Even so, the committee said the episode pointed to deeper governance problems.
Evidence presented during the inquiry suggested that some of the challenges the government faced during the period were tied to weak coordination between ministries at the Cabinet level.
According to the committee, stronger coordination from the Office of the President could have reduced institutional conflicts, improved the flow of information and prevented several of the anomalies that later emerged across government institutions.
The report also highlights concerns about attempts by senior executive officials to influence or direct aspects of the Commission’s proceedings. The committee stressed that commissions of inquiry operate as independent fact-finding bodies established under law and should not be subjected to interference.
Any effort to influence their operational or decision-making processes, the committee noted, runs contrary to the principles of institutional independence and rule-of-law governance.
Lawmakers further pointed to confusion over the boundaries between the executive branch and independent investigative bodies. They said the conduct observed suggested weaknesses in internal executive coordination and a lack of clarity about those constitutional and legal limits.
Another issue raised in the report was the exclusion of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs from parts of the asset management process after the commission concluded its work. The committee said it was concerning that a ministry with statutory responsibility over financial governance and asset management could be sidelined from such matters.
In addition, exchanges between senior ministers responsible for key portfolios revealed tensions that were not resolved at the Cabinet level. The committee said stronger intervention from the Office of the President could have eased those disputes and promoted more coherent government action.
The committee recommended that the Office of the President ensure all ministries are allowed to perform their statutory and policy functions fully and that no institution is excluded from major national processes unless required by law or conflict-of-interest rules.
The committee also called on the government to urgently undertake comprehensive civil service reform, focusing on stronger record management systems, better coordination frameworks and improved accountability mechanisms across ministries and departments.
