| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Momodou
Denmark
11723 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Mar 2024 : 15:08:24
|
Gov’t generates over D1B from sales of 36 Jammeh properties
Te Point: Mar 21, 2024
Article By: Jankey Ceesay
https://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/headlines/govt-generates-over-d1b-from-sales-of-36-jammeh-properties
The Attorney General and Minister for Justice Dawda A.A. Jallow has told deputies that The Gambia government generated over D1 billion from the sales of 36 properties of the former President Yahya Jammeh.
Responding to questions from deputies on Wednesday at the National Assembly, Minister Jallow said a sale 36 properties was conducted in three separate phases.
He further revealed that “the Commission did not deal with sale of rice, cattle and sheep. These were sold by the Sheriff, under the instruction of the Janneh Commission and the total amount from the sale was about D8 million.”
He added the tractors were sold by the Janneh Commission and the proceeds were paid into the assets recovery account at the Central Bank of the Gambia. “The furniture is at the former president’s residence in Kanilai and there was no gold acquired.”
The minister also informed that in July 2019, Alpha Capital Advisory – a reputable local chartered accountant firm took over from Augustus Prom as the receivership of the Jammeh properties. He said Alpha Capital Advisory was retained to repudiate properties identified for sale by the inter-ministerial task force.
“The properties earmarked for sale included 44 belonging to former president, 15 forfeited to the state from Baba K. Jobe and 7 properties from General Saul Badjie. Additionally, eleven properties were considered and reserved for potential government use.
To facilitate transparency and wider participation, he said that a website www.trusty.gm was established to showcase all the properties that were earmarked for sale alongside newspaper advertisements.
“The auction was conducted in phases. Phase one was on the 4th of September 2019. Phase 2 was on the 7th of October 2019 and phase 3 was on the 18th of November 2019.”
“To encourage participation, auction details were available online and bidding forms were accessible at a designated office. Successful bidders received formal letters detailing the property bid amount and seven days payment deadline,” the Minister explained. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11723 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2025 : 10:41:32
|
The National Assembly Special Select Committee begins its public hearings into the sale of former president Yahya Jammeh’s assets.
Following The Republic investigations in April, which caused protests and arrests, parliament set up a 7-member committee to look into how the former leader’s assets were disposed of.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11723 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2025 : 09:14:53
|
Former chair says Janneh Commission had no budget or specific Act to execute mandate
By Awa Macalo
Sourahata B. Semega-Janneh, the former chairperson of the Janneh Commission, appeared as the second witness before the National Assembly special committee investigating the sale and disposal of former president Yahya Jammeh's assets.
During his testimony yesterday, Mr. Janneh stated that the Janneh Commission operated without a specific supporting Act, unlike the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC). Instead, it relied on the 1997 Constitution, its Terms of Reference, and the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1903 to guide its work.
He also revealed that his role as chair was similar to that of the other commissioners, with all members receiving the same Terms of Reference. “My role as chair of the commission is no different from that of other commissioners, except when it gets to voting, but we have never gotten to that stage.”
Mr. Janneh further disclosed that prior to his appointment, he had a discussion with the former Minister of Justice Abubacarr Tambadou about his willingness to take the job.
He also confirmed that the lawsuit between the Government of The Gambia and former president Yahya Jammeh, which led to an interim order and the freezing of Jammeh’s assets through the High Court of The Gambia, laid the foundation for the commission to successfully execute its work. He said Augustus Prom was appointed as the receiver of the property by the Ministry of Justice.
During the operational period of the Commission, Mr. Janneh recalled a team visit to Jarra Soma, where they discovered large properties. According to residents, the properties belonged to Mr. Baba Jobe. The Commission inquired about the ownership of the properties and later took charge of them.
“We went to Soma for a different purpose but somebody discovered these shops and told us. We got confirmation from the residents who all agreed and told us some of them were paying D3000 as rent. That was when we (the commission) appointed Prom (well not his first appointment) to be the receiver and collect all the money and deposit it in our account. Our fallout with him was because he wanted 10 percent and we told him we can only give 3 percent and he disagreed. That was what separated us.”
The Commission’s work spanned 18 months. He told the committee that the Janneh Commission operated without a budget. “There was this man who was working for the Ministry of Justice. I can't recall his name but he was also liaising with the Accountant General. We addressed everything concerning money to the Ministry of Justice, so they must have liaised with the Ministry of Finance. We never took money from what was being collected, none of us were signatories to the accounts. The signatories were the Accountant General.
So at the end of the day, all money went to the Ministry of Justice. But one thing I heard, I didn’t see it in a piece of paper, was that initially, the TRRC–which came just after the Janneh Commission– the money that they used for the set up of the TRRC, I understand, was collected from the money we got,” he explained to the committee.
Source: The Republic |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11723 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2025 : 10:31:51
|
From Chairperson to Witness: Surahata Janneh Before National Assembly Special Committee on Sales and Disposal of Assets Identified by the ‘Janneh Commission’.
By Kemeseng Sanneh (Kexx News)
Retired lawyer and donyen of The Gambian Bar, Surahata Janneh, former chairperson of the Janneh Commission of Inquiry, appeared before the Special Commission tasked to inquire into the sales and disposal of assets identified by the former Janneh Commission he headed
Before he commenced his testimony, Mr. Janneh took an oath before the Special Select Committee and confirmed receipt of a summons, and also provided a statement and additional information. He was, however, quick to indicate that his initial understanding was that his “additional statement” was not meant to be tendered, but he took no objection to it being tendered.
A point of contention arose early in the session regarding the tendering of documents provided to him by Counsel Dibba, "Supplement A", being the Gazette Notice establishing the former Commission. Witness Janneh highlighted his observations before tendering the document. However, Counsel Dibba insisted on the document being tendered first, indicating that once tendered, it would become part of witness Janneh’s evidence.
Counsel Dibba’s line of questioning then delved into the establishment of the Janneh Commission. Witness Janneh recounted initial discussions with the President and later the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and he expressed his willingness to accept the role. He attributed the "initiation" of the commission to former Attorney General Ba Tambedou.
He went on to state that several briefings were held with the Minister of Justice as preliminary discussions. He further highlighted the difference between the Janneh Commission and the TRRC (Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission), noting that the TRRC was established with its own Act detailing its mandate, whereas the Janneh Commission had to work with the Solicitor General to define its terms.
Witness Janneh highlighted the budgetary challenge of the Janneh Commission. According to Janneh, there was a lack of a dedicated budget for the Janneh Commission, forcing them to rely solely on government funding. When asked if there were discussions on the commission's scope beyond Legal Notice 5, he replied negatively.
While explaining his role as chairperson, witness Janneh referred to SBs1 (Terms of Reference), stating that it only indicated the Chairperson would chair the commission, with no special role beyond being a commissioner.
He explained that as a lawyer with over 50 years of experience, he worked alongside a banker and an accountant on the commission. In discussions, the relevant expert would lead (e.g., the accountant for accounting matters, the banker for banking, and himself for legal issues). He asserted his role did not differ from other commissioners, except in voting. He added disagreements over issues raised, they discussed further, and sometimes the other party will submit to the submission of the other, and an agreement will come into place.
Counsel Dibba presented witness Janneh’s appointment letter alongside those of the other two commissioners to highlight the difference in the appointment letters. After a careful review, witness Janneh acknowledged both letters, signed by then-Solicitor General Cherno Marena.
Counsel Dibba drew his attention to a phrase in his (witness Janneh) letter on the last page stating "Kindly familiarise yourself with the ToR of your appointment," noting a distinction as the other commissioners' letters had an attached "ToK" (Terms of Reference), while his did not. Witness Janneh responded that the only difference was the reference to a general understanding of the commission's work.
The hearing then shifted to the legal suit before the commission's full establishment, a legal suit between the State and Yahya Jammeh meant to protect certain assets of the former President. Witness Janneh initially denied awareness of the lawsuit but acknowledged seeing an order using (using "maybe") regarding lands and accounts controlled by Jammeh, describing it as a "whole schedule."
Counsel Dibba explained that the lawsuit was meant to obtain an order to "prepare the ground" for the commission, Mr. Janneh then acknowledged an injunction on May 22, 2017, related to freezing orders, as contained in MoJ 3 before him.
Regarding MoJ 2, a legal notice from the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Janneh read "Land owned by Yahya Jammeh," dated July 12, 2017, but would not confirm President Adama Barrow's signature.
Counsel Dibba stated that it was the core mandate of the commission, witness Janneh disagreed with the term "Code Mandate" for the Janneh Commission, stating there was "nothing like Code Mandate." He asserted that the commission derived its mandate from Sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 1997 Constitution, which he read aloud, and explained that the constitution allows for the enactment of other acts regarding commissions of inquiry. He acknowledged Section 201's requirement for an impartial investigation and report.
When Counsel Dibba inquired about the commission's relationship with institutions like the Livestock Market Agency (mentioned in MoJ 5 for asset management), witness Janneh stated he did not recall any such specific relationship. He admitted the commission engaged with many institutions, but could not remember.
On the commission's budget and institutional structure, witness Janneh explained that the Janneh Commission's draft budget was discussed and likely incorporated into the national budget through various government channels, although he was not directly privy to the exact process. He confirmed that the initial three-month budget was indeed consulted with the commissioners, lead counsel, and secretary.
Regarding the commission's institutional structure, witness Janneh highlighted the government's role in seconding personnel, particularly judicial officers from the judiciary. He stressed their experience in taking evidence, stating the commission "would have been impossible... to proceed without their assistance."
He stated that the seconded officers likely received their allowance, though he could not confirm the precise payment structure, adding that specialised professionals, such as accountants, were also brought in under Section 4.
On the measures to safeguard the commission's institutional independence, Witness Janneh stated that he was never contacted by the Ministry of Justice during the process, believing the same applied to other commissioners. He emphasised his independence, recounting an incident where he publicly rejected a letter from the Secretary General outlining a Cabinet decision the commission was expected to follow. He stated he would have resigned if they had insisted, asserting, "I am a very independent person."
When asked about the role of the secretary and staff reporting lines, Mr. Janneh explained that commissioners had "very little to do with the administration of the commission," with primary responsibility falling to the secretary assigned by the committee. He stated that the secretary served as the "depository... of the documents of the Commission," managing files and records, and acting as a "court clerk" during proceedings, providing "lessons" and managing numerous exhibits.
He added that the secretary also managed a large team of support staff, including technicians, drivers, and consultants, who all reported to the secretary. Investigators, however, reported to the lead counsel. Witness Janneh noted that most commission staff, apart from the specially appointed secretary, were government employees whose salaries were covered by the government, with allowances.
On the Commission's authority and Commissioner affiliations, witness Janneh explained that while the commission generally had authority over its staff, receiving reports from both counsel and the secretary, Mr. Janneh clarified this authority wasn't absolute due to separate contracts for some consultants. He emphasised the "immense workload" of commissioners, who were "extremely busy" with thousands of exhibits, often working long hours and holding frequent meetings.
Regarding the declaration of prior professional or institutional affiliations that might create conflicts of interest, witness Janneh stated he was not required by the appointing authority to disclose any such affiliations. He alluded to his extensive background as a lawyer, civil servant (including Master and Registrar of the High Court), and previous involvement with the National Consultative Committee.
He further outlined the workflow between the three main units: the Commissioners, the Lead Counsel and Investigative Unit, and the Secretariat, emphasising consultation despite independent operations.
He explained that the Lead Counsel was responsible for all court cases related to the commission, personally appearing in court and briefing commissioners on decisions. She frequently consulted commissioners, especially on "very elaborate matters" or unusual investigative findings, and that while consultation was almost daily, she did not attend all commission meetings.
The Lead Counsel also played a role in formally entering exhibits, preparing affidavits, and seeking commissioner permission for documents to be accepted as evidence, as he (witness Janneh) was the only legally qualified commissioner, and information for exhibits came from investigators and other sources.
He further stated that the Investigative Unit, comprising personnel from the Inspectorate of Police, focused on general investigations, similar to a CID. He emphasised a deliberate decision to avoid direct contact between commissioners and investigators to prevent prejudice and maintain impartiality. He proceeded to explain that investigators supplied findings to the Lead Counsel, who would present material information publicly, often involving cross-examination. Direct access to documents from investigators by commissioners was "very rare," except for video evidence.
He continued to state that the Secretariat managed administration, acted as the custodian of documents, managed files, and served as a clerk. Support staff generally reported to the secretary, and he clarified that "security" in paragraph 10 of SBS1 should be substituted with "investigators," as security personnel were not involved in evaluation reports, but investigators were. He confirmed that the lead Counsel headed both the legal and investigative teams.
On the commission's power to make interim orders. Counsel Dibba drew witness Janneh's attention to paragraph 7 of his second statement (SBS1A) and paragraph C of SBS1, both alluding to interim orders. Witness Janneh provided a legal distinction: an "order" is a directive that "you must do it," while a "recommendation" offers a choice.
He described "interim orders" as temporary directives made to prevent harm to property during proceedings, comparing them to court-issued interim orders to prevent "perishing" or damage. He differentiated between immovable landed property, rarely subject to interim orders, and movable chattels (e.g., cars, tables), which are vulnerable to theft, sabotage, or spoilage.
Counsel Dibba then referred to Section 202 of the 1997 Constitution, stating that a commission of inquiry shall make a "full and impartial investigation" and report findings. He then referred witness Janneh to Section 221, which grants a commission "all the powers, rights, and privileges... of a judge of the high court" regarding "enforcing the attendance of witnesses... compelling the production of documents... and making interim orders."
Witness Janneh agreed that the two sections "must be read together". He clarified that a commission of inquiry is empowered to make both orders and interim orders, including "final orders in the sense that it goes to the finality of a particular issue, not in respect of a whole case or a whole matter."
He cited an example from Volume 1 and 2, page 25, concerning SSHFC versus Augustus Prompt, where the commission ruled against SSHFC, asserting its jurisdiction. Mr. Janneh emphasised that it was an "order by us," not an interim order. He further asserted that, based on the case of Pap Cheyassin Secka v. Attorney General, a Commission of Inquiry has co-extensive jurisdiction with the High Court, meaning neither is superior. Appeals from a Commission of Inquiry go directly to the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.
The relationship between constitutional provisions and the commission's powers. Counsel Dibba stated that Section 202 of the Constitution outlines general functions, and Section 202 outlines general powers, and that the two sections must be read together, with powers being necessary for functions.
Witness Janneh largely agreed, stating, "I would say, yes, but more is added." He highlighted Section 206 of the Constitution, which allows an "Act of the National Assembly [to] make further provision for the purposes of the chapter." He argued the provision, coupled with similar wording in the Historical Commission of Enquiry Act of 1903, indicates the constitutional provisions are not exhaustive, and the Commission had to use its discretion to formulate its own rules in the absence of specific legislative action.
He asserted that the Commission of Enquiry Act was amended to adapt to Section 202, but when Counsel Dibba stated that the amendment verbatim mirrored 202 and did not go beyond it, witness Janneh was "not aware of that" and noted it "doesn't make any difference" to his point about the need for detailed rules from the National Assembly.
Counsel Dibba highlighted a recent 2018 Supreme Court judgment on similar issues to the Pap Cheyassin Secka case, suggesting it might present a "slight disagreement" by restricting the commission's powers to what is explicitly stated in Section 202, to which witness Janneh expressed unfamiliarity with the 2018 judgment but maintained his stance based on established co-extensive jurisdiction.
A brief exchange regarding witness Janneh's CV clarified that Counsel Dibba's question was to ascertain if the appointing authority had vetted for conflicts of interest, not to question competence. Mr. Janneh then sought to tender a document related to his professional board membership, which Counsel Dibba confirmed was already submitted to Parliament and would be marked as SBS 1 B.
At the end of the session, Counsel Dibba thanked witness Janneh and informed him that it was just the first hearing, and handed him over to the members of the committee. |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Janneh Commission of inquiry on Y. Jammeh's assets
Topic Locked
