His testimony sparked heated exchanges with counsel and committee members seeking to clarify who truly holds responsibility for ensuring cabinet directives are carried out.
Appearing before the committee, Ceesay, who also once served as permanent secretary and later as ambassador to Russia, said the secretary to Cabinet’s role was strictly administrative and limited to recording cabinet conclusions, not monitoring implementation.
“Cabinet secretariat is not part of operational matters,” he insisted. “We do the minutes, the conclusions, and extract copies for the relevant ministries. But follow-up on implementation is left entirely with the ministers and their departments. For a secretary to Cabinet to chase directives would be out of order.”
Counsel pushed back, arguing that parliament requires full disclosure of the processes behind Cabinet decisions. He pressed him further, asking whether his position meant he had no accountability for outcomes.
Ceesay held his ground, repeating that the office was confined to facilitating cabinet meetings, preparing agenda, and transmitting decisions.
Ceesay explained that while the secretary to Cabinet reports directly to the secretary general on civil service matters, cabinet affairs are cleared only with the president as chair of the cabinet.
“On Cabinet issues, I go straight to the chairman, the President. You don’t report Cabinet matters to the secretary general,” he clarified.
Counsel, however, pointed out that this dual reporting structure often created confusion, especially since the deputy secretary general’s position did not formally exist until 2020.
Ceesay confirmed that during his tenure from 2017 to 2020, the office was “non-existent,” leaving the secretary to Cabinet to act as de facto deputy to the secretary general.
Counsel summed up: “If the secretary to Cabinet says he does not follow up, and the secretary general only advises, then who ensures the people’s business is truly carried out?”
For Ceesay, the answer was clear: “The ministers. Cabinet secretariat is not an enforcement body. We record history, but implementation rests with those who make the policy.”
