The testimony, which spanned three days (Monday to Wednesday last week), left both commissioners and counsels bewildered, as it was riddled with contradictions and lacked substantiated evidence.
Nema-su Enterprise was contracted to supply rice and oil to the Area Council, but evidence presented to the Commission revealed potential overpayments to the company, which amounted to D1.1 million. Despite this, Mr. Dibba remained resolute in his stance that he had fulfilled the terms of the contract.
During questioning, the CEO struggled to recall crucial details, such as the supplier of the rice and the cost per bag at the time of purchase. Deputy Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez exposed inconsistencies, revealing that another company (Jah Oil) had offered a lower price for the contract. Despite this, Nema-su Enterprise was awarded the contract, raising suspicions of impropriety.
Counsel Gomez challenged Mr. Dibba with evidence of overpayments, pointing out that the company had received more than the agreed contract sum. The CEO claimed that the Council only paid him when additional supplies were needed, but he could not provide specifics on these transactions.
Moreover, Mr. Dibba's claim that the contract did not specify the items to be supplied contradicted his earlier written statement, which clearly outlined the provision of rice and oil.
The confusion deepened as the CEO insisted on having supplied goods for the monies he received, despite his inability to provide invoices or delivery notes to support his claim. The Commission raised concerns about payments and discrepancies, highlighting instances where the witness was issued cheques exceeding the invoiced amounts.
Lead Counsel Yakar Cox confronted Mr. Dibba with a payment voucher indicating an overpayment. The witness admitted to the inconsistency but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or a resolution for the imbalance.
In the end, despite the numerous discrepancies and lack of clarity in his testimony, Almamo Dibba was discharged by the Commission. However, the possibility of a recall looms, should further clarification be required in this convoluted case.
