He was given four (4) vouchers, and he confirmed that they were all from KMC. Cham said one of the vouchers was payment for a trip to Dakar on an official mission.
The request attached to the invoice was by Dembo Sanneh (administration director) and was dated 16 May 2019. The payment was for Yusupha Sanneh (driver) for an amount of D34,320.
On who prepared the voucher, Cham said he did not know. He was later also asked bakut approval, but he said he knew not much about the voucher.
The second voucher was payment for Congress and Conference Local/Overseas. This time, Cham said he authorised the voucher, adding that the director of finance also signed the voucher.
He said the voucher was prepared by Nyima Gibba, and the request was prepared by Dembo S.N. Sanneh, director of administration. The request was for the payment of per diem for Mayor Talib Bensouda, Isatou Faal, Nourideen Adams, and the driver Yusupha Sanneh. The payment was for attending a 3-day stakeholders meeting in Dakar.
Moving on to the third voucher, which was a payment for per diem for the PR officer and the protocols to facilitate a visa application process in Dakar for the mayor, who was supposed to travel to Canada.
Cham admitted that he made the request, saying, “There is a signature that looks like mine.”
“If the signature looks like yours," the lead counsel said, "you, more than all people, can tell the Commission whether the signature is yours or not."
Cham then said he was not sure if it was his signature.
“Is it correct to say it is not your signature?” Gomez asked, adding if he sees his signature, he would not be able to recognise it, but Cham said he had doubts about the signature.
“What makes you have doubt?” Gomez quizzed.
Cham explained that his style is that he gives approval on the request itself, and he does not have the time to type and print a document to approve a request.
“The first page on the voucher is totally not mine,” Cham claimed.
“How about the signature on the request?” Gomez asked, but Cham maintained he had doubts about that one as well.
He was given a memo from the office of the mayor, dated 16 May 2019. The witness said the memo had the subject 'Request for Support” and was addressed to him. It was for the travel of the PR and the protocol officers to Dakar.
The fourth voucher was for the payment of per diem to the PR and protocol officers for their trip to Dakar. Cham said he did not approve it. Instead, it was his deputy who signed it together with the director of finance.
The four vouchers were admitted in evidence. However, the lead Counsel asked, "How do you account for these payments in your absence?”
The witness testified that the KMC has internal control mechanisms wherein the finance and the internal audit departments should ensure that all payments raised are genuine, and in case he travels outside the country, on his return he should be briefed. He admitted that he was never briefed in any of these occasions regarding the payments.
The witness was asked about how council staff travel to attend events, programmes, or pieces of training. He said they look at the programme, and priority is given to the department whose work relates to the training or event. He added that the management would nominate that person and he would be released to go.
“It means, for anyone to travel in the KMC, you should know about it as the CEO,” Counsel Gomez said.
“Yes, I should be aware,” the witness answered.
He was given a voucher. It was in relation to an invitation to the mayor by the Embassy of India for a meeting. The witness could not say whether his office was notified of the invitation for the Dakar trip by the mayor. On that trip, the mayor went with Isatou Faal, Nourideen Adams, Kibilly Sengula, and Yusupha Sanneh.
“I have not approved it,” he said.
The witness said the travel was not addressed to him, and he did not approve the trip of the mayor and the team to Senegal.
“Was the approval proper?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“It is proper because the head of the institution is travelling,” the witness replied.
“Who is the head of the institution?” Gomez asked.
“The mayor,” the witness answered.
“Who is the chief accounting officer?” Gomez asked.
“Myself, the CEO,” the witness answered.
The witness changed his statement and stated that he was aware of the voucher and that he had signed it. At this point, he was given another voucher, and he stated that he did not sign it.
“Is that proper?” Lead Counsel Gomez asked.
“No,” the witness answered.
