The distribution of plots at Kamalo Industrial Layout includes: 47 Gambians, 4 Mauritanians, 1 Moroccan, 7 Indians, and 1 Chinese.
The number of the demarcated 68 plots indicated that some allottees have been allotted more than one plot.
Also, among the 47 Gambians include naturalised individuals.
This was revealed by the minister of Lands, Regional Government, and Religious Affairs Hamat N.K. Bah, at a press conference at SDKJ Conference Centre on Wednesday.
In the third quarter of 2023, a Multi-Sectoral Taskforce was formed to review the allocation of demarcated plots of land at KAMALO Industrial Layout. It was to conduct a comprehensive review exercise to thoroughly examine the land allocation processes amidst public outcry that multiple and inappropriate allocations were made at the site.
The Multi-Sectoral Taskforce comprised the following institutions: Ministry of Lands, Regional Government and Religious Affairs; Ministry of Trade, Industry and Employment; Ministry of Justice; National Audit Office; Gambia Police Force; Gambia Investment and Export Promotion Agency; State Intelligence Services and National Physical Planning Board.
“There was no evidence provided to the committee that Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted either by the Ministry or the allottees before allocations were done. Therefore, the opportunities associated with such an important assessment was (sic) lost, due to the Ministry’s failure for not complying with relevant law,” according to the report of the Taskforce.
It thus recommended that those allocations without evidence of Ministerial approval be revoked, adding that the Department of Lands and Survey under the leadership of the former Director of Lands did not follow the due process by allocating without any evidence of Ministerial approval in the files.
Further revealing the content of the report of the Taskforce, Minister Bah said that the Ministry should endeavour to have a proper filling system in place and efforts to ensure that the Kamalo file is produced.
“That the decision to make Kamalo an industrial layout should be reconsidered as it could pose serious adverse environmental challenges as most of the investors have projected to build heavy industries on the site,” he declared.
“The above can, however, be validated through a comprehensive environment audit in accordance with regulation 30 of the cited EIA Regulations. It is advisable for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to perform comprehensive general and specific Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) at the Karmalo site to determine any existing or potential damage” he revealed.
He continued that these assessments will serve as crucial information for making informed decisions on a broad scale.
“In the absence of business registration certificate and receipt of payment application fee, the said allottee should not have been considered for allocation as consequence the Committee recommends that their allocation should be revoked.”
Based on the forgoing, he said, it is evident that the Department of Lands and Survey under the leadership of the former Director of Lands did not properly scrutinise the submission of the applicant before the allocation.
The Taskforce further recommended establishing clear criteria/policy for allocating multiple plots to an individual in the future. These criteria, he said, will serve as a transparent and accountable yardstick to determine qualifications and enhance the allocation process to be fair and just.
He added that in the absence of clear criteria, they should forfeit the other plot to the state in the case of one of the allottees, no ministerial approval was obtained, and the task force was unable to ascertain how he received a photocopied allocation letter.
The taskforce further recommended initiating administrative sanctions against a Physical Planning Officer, who presented a photocopy of the allocation letter to the applicant and devise preventive measures for similar incidents in the future.
The taskforce also recommended that allocation to Painterman be revoked, stating that the Director of Lands should be held liable for recommending the applicant by ignoring the professional advice of a Senior Officer at the Physical Planning and Housing.
It pointed out that by submitting personal bank statement instead of a company’s bank statement raises doubts about the liquidity of the company at the time and as such the application did not meet the requirement to be allocated plot, and as a result, it should be revoked.
