The recent media frenzy around one of the leading commercial banks in Sierra Leone appears to have died down following the release of a report by the Anti-Corruption Commission following a rather lengthy investigation into alleged wrongdoing in the procurement of vehicles for the bank.
What started as the usual mischief making on social media, ended up as a full blown investigation into a possible “conspiracy to commit a corruption offence, misappropriation of public funds, negligently failing to comply with law or applicable procedures and guidelines relating to the procurement, allocation, tendering of contract and management of funds…amounting to over one million United States Dollars.”
The ACC investigation centered on the possible role played by the Managing Director of the bank, Yusif Abdul Sillah and the head of procurement, Momodu Edward Sesay in the purchase of vehicles for the MD and for general services.
Politico has obtained a document providing a detailed chronological account of what transpired from the inception of the procurement process to the conclusion of the ACC investigations.
The document shows that when Sillah took over the state-owned institution he moved to end an untidy and unnecessarily expensive arrangement in which the bank paid substantial amounts of money to hire vehicles to conduct daily business, because he thought the arrangement didn’t represent “prudent financial discipline.”
According to a report signed by the ACC’s Evelyn Kuyateh, Director of Intelligence and Investigations, the ACC combed through the whole procurement process and concluded that it was “very flawed”, but noted that they didn’t believe that the Managing Director and the Head of Procurement acted with any criminal intent to warrant proffering charges against them” but that they “gravely failed in their administrative duties…”
Documents in our possession now reveal that the social media attacks on the Managing Director in particular started in February, 2024, shortly after the Managing Director wrote to the National Public Procurement Authority inviting them to conduct a procurement review process for the bank, to “identify weaknesses in its processes and proffer recommendations for improvement going forward”. The letter also looked forward to “suggestions for capacitating the procurement unit, as we seek to drive efficiency in the competitive landscape that we operate in.”
On February 19, 2024, Managing Director Sillah emailed his procurement officer, saying he had seen an anonymous article on social media “with very disturbing and unsubstantiated content.” Sillah said “my concerns were not for the content of the article, since the facts are completely different…the fact that the article was backed by the unauthorized release of the bank’s confidential document, bearing the minutes and signature of both MD and FD to unscrupulous and faceless individuals to support their claims warrants the issue to be treated seriously.
Sillah also instructed the Head of Procurement “to prepare a comprehensive report for publication or not by the bank in response to these vile, malicious and mischievous allegations,” threatening him with disciplinary action “for failing to properly secure such sensitive documents for which you are the principal custodian, resulting in them ending up in the hands of unauthorized persons.”
In his reply on 23 February 2024, the Head of Procurement called the MD’s attention to the NPPA review process he had ordered, saying “shortly after the completion of the NPPA review an article was circulated on social media relating to some of the documents and information which have (sic) been the subject of the NPPA review.”
Sesay then called into question the legality, extent and reasoning behind the commissioning of the review by NPPA saying “the decision to invite the NPPA to conduct a procurement review not limited to the monitoring of a particular transaction but extended to the examination of departmental books, entire transactions, standards, structures, qualifications of personnel, was not previously discussed and approved at procurement committee meeting or board with reasons given for such an elaborate and delicate exercise.”
Sesay, who has 13 years under his belt as a procurement professional, said he had asked questions and discussed the necessity of the NPPA review with the MD, “however, with the directive of the MD having already invited the NPPA to conduct the exercise, I agreed to comply.”
He concluded that “the records were signed for, reviewed and returned by the NPPA monitors, yet such external personnel are not governed by SLCB rules and regulations and no one knows who else had contact, physical, electronic or otherwise with the monitors. I had no control over the latter while the information and documents were in the possession.”
Once Sesay’s position on the possible source of the information leak was conveyed to the NPPA, they ordered an internal investigation led by Francis M. Gbaya the Director of Legal and Corporate affairs. The outcome was that the NPPA was not responsible for the leak and urged the SLCB to “institute a special internal investigation into the alleged social media leak.” They argued that “having harbored malice against the MD, the Head of Procurement took the opportunity of the review exercise to get back at the MD using the team (NPPA review) as a scapegoat.”
The documents in our possession show that during the NPPA review “exceptions were identified, prompting responses from the unit head (Head of Procurement). After his response, internal audit (SLCB) was tasked to verify and assess the adequacy of the responses provided by the unit head to address the exceptions raised.”
The internal audit report signed by Olayinka Philips, Director of Internal Audit, detailed a blow-by-blow account of the response of the Head of Procurement and concluded that “the evidences backing the responses from the Head of Procurement to the NPPA exceptions for 2022 procurement review are inadequate and could not be substantiated.”
A former intelligence officer specializing in fraud, told Politico that it is obvious from all the documents quoted here that the Head of Procurement was opposed to the MD’s decision to invite the NPPA to review the bank’s procurement processes. “I observe that the purchase of the vehicles remained an internal matter until the NPPA received the documents from the SLCB for review”, the specialist who wishes to be anonymous, went on.
He went on: “The fact that the NPPA rejected the insinuation that the official SLCB papers might have been leaked from their end and recommended that the SLCB investigate the source of the leak internally, smacks of some sinister and desperate intents by an insider at the bank.
He said that even though administrative channels may have been sidestepped, the bank had no choice but to go through that process and end the air of suspicion that could harm the reputation of the institution and drive away customers.
Another expert who is still in service said that the purchase of vehicles for the bank was a commonsense move given the fact that the bank paid in excess of Le 800 million on monthly vehicle rentals at the time. But it seems the termination of that “wasteful contract was not in everybody’s interest, hence the leak”.
Copyright © 2024 Politico (17/07/24)
