Written by: Alieu Jallow
The Lead Counsel of the Local Government Commission, Patrick Gomez, warned during the September 3rd sittings that the commission will not tolerate any witness refusing to answer questions. His remarks came amid what was described as an intense scrutiny of Kanifing Municipal Council (KMC) Mayor, Talib Ahmed Bensouda.
“Not answering the questions cannot be condoned and I will urge the commissioners not to condone it. We have not condoned it for witnesses and I do not think we should condone it for Mr. Bensouda,” Gomez said.
The dispute arose during probing into contract thresholds at the council. Gomez pressed for clarity on the legal framework guiding agreements, while Bensouda insisted that although such agreements were discussed in his presence, he could not always confirm whether they were formally documented.
When Gomez demanded evidence of these agreements, Bensouda argued that council minutes and resolutions reflected such discussions. Gomez disagreed, saying no such evidence had been presented.
“Is there a law that provides that council can agree on something and not pass a resolution?” Gomez asked.
“There is no law that says that we can’t,” Bensouda replied, suggesting that informal agreements could still take place even without a resolution.
At this stage, Gomez sought the chair’s intervention, warning that the mayor was avoiding direct answers. Chairperson of the commission, Madam Jainaba Bah, reminded Bensouda that the commission had already directed the clerk to verify whether a resolution existed on contract agreements.
Bensouda then clarified his concern: while he was ready to answer questions, he would not be forced to frame his responses in a way that appeared guided or incriminating. “I believe witnesses also have rights and I believe I should not be forced to give an answer that the lead counsel likes. I will answer to the best of my knowledge how I can, but to force me to say this is how you have to answer… you’re trying to incriminate me or entrap me, and I don’t think that is right,” he argued.
Chair Bah rejected this perception, stressing that the commission’s role was to establish facts, not to incriminate witnesses. “I don’t think it is correct to make that assertion. The lead counsel can in no way force you to answer questions for the purpose of incriminating you, I don’t think so,” she said.
Gomez continued by citing the general council meeting minutes dated March 19th, 2019, which referred to the threshold issue. Bensouda clarified that while the matter was debated, it was not adopted as a formal agreement. “I did say there was an agreement, I said there was a discussion. I believe when the document came you can rewind the tapes and [see that] in the meeting of March 2019 the threshold matter was discussed. It was a debate about thresholds. I did not say it was an agreement,” he explained.
“Mr. Bensouda, if there is an agreement, will it be in the minutes of the meeting?” Gomez asked.
“It should be,” Bensouda responded.
The tense exchanges eventually eased when Bensouda requested a break, which he described as his basic human right. Meanwhile, Gomez requested that the registrar provide copies of submitted documents to the witness, a request that was granted.
