Jeng was quizzed over a suppression amounting to the sum of D7,000, but he argued that the money was not suppressed, but instead spent as contribution towards the ceremony of one of the council's staff.
He claimed that BAC supports staff members when they have ceremonies or funerals, saying he couldn’t recall who received the said sum of D7000 as he had no record of it.
He, however, told the commission that it was a wrong spending as the Financial Manual for Local Government Councils does not permit such expenditures. “It was done on humanitarian ground.” he posited.
Chairperson Jainaba asked him to provide the Commission with evidence before Thursday.
Having acknowledged that the expenditure was unlawful, he revealed that the CEO of the council is the approving authority for all transactions, saying there is no clear guidelines on approvals.
Jeng was questioned about an unaccounted sum of D63,000 contained in the 2020 internal audit report.
He claimed that the matter was addressed, although he could not substantiate his assertion with evidence.
Chairperson Jainaba Bah again instructed him to provide evidence.
The Commission of Inquiry also raised untraced payments and further questioned him about the said ‘untraced payments’ amounting to the sum of D1.6 million.
“All these vouchers were traced. The auditors said the vouchers were not traced, but it was later traced.” he responded.
He was again asked to provide the Commission with evidence detailing the sum of D1.6 million expenditures.
The Commission also underscored the audit finding regarding deposit slips amounting to over D44.29 million that were not presented.
Jeng said those were transfers.
Counsel Gomez, however, reminded him that the issue of deposit slips would not have arisen ‘if funds’ were transferred.
Witness Jeng stated that what he meant was that they have the deposit slips, but they are copies.
Additionally, the finance director was also questioned about the D160,000 whose details were missing. He, however, claimed the issue was resolved.
“How do you mean that the matter was resolved?" the counsel further quizzed.
“The market tickets were traced, while the others were not traced. The collectors indicated their willingness to settle the outstanding fee.” he added.
He was then ordered to provided evidence.
