By Fatou Dahaba
Ex-Secretary of the Janneh Commission Ramatoulie Sarr has been intensely questioned at the special select committee on the sale and disposal of assets identified by the Janneh Commission over her knowledge and handling of two controversial reports on tractor and vehicle sales.
The inquiry examines the circumstances surrounding reports RS 34 and RS 39, which detailed sales conducted between 1 and 5 October 2018 by the Commission.
However, she insisted on never seeing the final reports, saying they were handed directly to commissioners and the lead counsel without her involvement. She added that she only came across the documents recently while compiling files for submission to the inquiry.
Ms Sarr also admitted she did not participate in any follow-up meetings after the sales activity despite being responsible for oversight. The committee raised concern about her testimony, pointing out that she was officially copied in on RS 39
“After you asked your team and your subordinates about the report, you want the committee to believe that once they produced the report, they did not bring it to you but brought it to the commissioners and the lead council. That’s what you want the committee to believe,” counsel Dibba questioned the witness. Ms Sarr maintained that she was not copied and had not seen the report.
Counsel Dibba went further, characterising her as a “puppet” appointed for her passivity and reluctance to challenge authority. He argued that her role may have been strategically designed to ensure compliance rather than robust oversight.
Dibba pointed out the discrepancies in the witness’s testimony to the committee chair. ‘Should I highlight the discrepancy? Given the fact that she recalls asking for the document. Two days later, the document was submitted to her. She is copied. She is the files’ custodian and still denies the facts,’ Frustrated Dibba told members of the committee.
The witness was also faulted for distancing herself from the auctions, insisting she was not on the ground during sales but only supervised the teams. Counsel rejected this defense, stressing that as head of the secretariat, she remained responsible for the process and ensuring her subordinates’ accountability.
Sarr confirmed that many tractors were tampered with while in the Commission’s custody, eventually being sold off as “scrap” instead of preserving their value. “Do you see how ironic it is that what the Commission set out to do with respect to preservation of the tractors was defeated? Instead of reserving their value, you depreciated their value,” Dibba highlighted.
Sarr justified the move by saying, “Maybe they didn’t want to lose everything, so they decided just to sell it out before they lose everything.”
The committee described her testimony as inconsistent, arguing that the Secretary couldn’t confirm that the reports were ready, yet had not received them.
Members said the witness testimony reflected a breakdown in internal coordination and communication within the Commission.
The inquiry is continuing to probe whether Ms Sarr’s limited involvement was due to negligence or a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability in managing the tractor sales reports.
