Dear Editor,
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit this rejoinder in response to the National Audit Office’s (NAO) rebuttal of my petition to the National Assembly’s Public Petitions Committee.
First, I must state that the NAO’s rebuttal is superficial, lacking in both substance and credibility. Rather than addressing the core issues, it attempts to distract the public with vague justifications, essentially affirming the concerns I raised. The leadership’s attempt to validate unnecessary foreign travel and internal nepotism is both misleading and disingenuous. In fact, as I pen this response, I understand that the Auditor General, Mr. Momodou Ceesay, alongside Mr. Baboucarr Ceesay, Mr. Alagie Drammeh, and Ms. Yamundow Gai, are once again out of the country. One must ask: what are these continuous trips contributing to the Gambian taxpayer?
The NAO’s denial of the petition was expected. Nevertheless, since they have claimed the allegations to be false and I insist on their veracity, it is now imperative for the National Assembly and the Gambia Institute of Chartered Accountants to fulfil their duties under Section 38 of the Financial Reporting Act 2013. A full and independent investigation must be conducted into the actions of the Auditor General and his leadership team. Investigators should thoroughly scrutinise the travel costs of NAO leaders using data from the IFMIS system, review job advertisement records, and cross-reference post-travel reports to assess the value these trips have provided, if any, to the Gambian public. Particular attention should be paid to the auditor general’s trip to Ethiopia for Embassy audits. Why would the auditor general himself go on field audits?
I will now address the points raised by the NAO in detail:
- Reference to the NAO Bill 2024
The NAO raised the issue of the NAO Bill 2024, which was not part of my petition. This indicates a lack of focus and attention from the author of their rebuttal. My petition was concerned with the professional conduct of the leadership, not the bill, and this unnecessary reference appears to be an attempt to shift focus away from the serious issues I highlighted. For clarity, I have already submitted a detailed position paper on the NAO Bill, and so has the Gambia Institute of Chartered Accountants. The deficiencies of this bill are well documented elsewhere and do not form part of this discourse.
- Criticism of My Research Approach
The NAO’s criticism of my research methodology reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how research is conducted, particularly when dealing with public institutions. As I mentioned in my petition, my research relied on secondary data from publicly available sources, such as NAO audit reports, government debt bulletins, data from the Central Bank of The Gambia, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank. This data is within the public domain and does not require permission to access. Additionally, whistleblowers contributed to the research, given the absence of adequate whistleblower protection laws in The Gambia. Interviews with staff members, conducted under strict confidentiality, formed a crucial part of the primary research. There is nothing unethical about this, especially when the public interest is at stake.
- Frequent Overseas Travel
The NAO did not adequately refute the claims concerning the frequency of overseas travel by its leadership. Indeed, the institution seems to acknowledge that senior officials, including the Auditor General, travel on a near-monthly basis. For instance, the Auditor General’s trip from Malawi directly to the United States highlights the excessive nature of these travels. Moreover, the NAO has failed to provide any evidence disproving the claim that the Auditor General took annual leave in the U.S. and then claimed per diem for those days—a clear abuse of taxpayer money. In similar situations, officials are expected to finance personal leave with their own funds, yet there has been no denial or clarification from the NAO on this point the expenses were subsequently claimed.
- Unadvertised Senior Positions
Another significant concern is the NAO’s silence on the public advertisement of senior positions. The NAO has not produced any evidence to show that the roles of Director of Audit were advertised, as required for such critical appointments. These positions were filled by individuals with questionable qualifications and or experience, raising serious doubts about their suitability. Ms. Yamundow Gai, for instance, was formerly the Director of Finance at GRTS, with no substantial auditing experience. Similarly, Mr. Baboucarr Ceesay’s credentials remain unclear, and it is imperative that an independent investigation looks into his professional background. It is worth noting that neither the Auditor General, Mr. Ceesay, nor his two directors appear on the ACCA membership register, which further questions their competence to lead The Gambia’s Supreme Audit Institution.
- Lack of Transparency in Travel Costs
The NAO’s justification of overseas trips, such as their attendance at the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) conference in the U.S., does not hold water. It is widely known that the internal auditors from other Gambian public institutions attended this same conference, yet their heads of departments did not. Why, then, did the Auditor General feel the need to attend personally, if not for the opportunity to claim per diem? Furthermore, the costs associated with this travel—when virtual attendance was a much cheaper option—demonstrate a blatant misuse of public funds.
- Failure to Acknowledge Nepotism
Finally, the NAO failed to address the blatant nepotism within its leadership structure. The fact that the Director of Audit positions were filled without a transparent and public recruitment process speaks volumes about the institutionalised favouritism at play. If the NAO can produce evidence of these positions being advertised in reputable outlets, I will withdraw this claim. Until then, the evidence of nepotism remains uncontested.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I call upon the National Assembly and the Gambia Institute of Chartered Accountants to immediately launch an investigation into the matters raised. The Gambian people deserve accountability, particularly in a context where public funds are already stretched, with a budget deficit of GMD 2.1 billion between January and May 2024. The NAO’s failure to substantiate its rebuttal, coupled with the apparent misuse of taxpayer money, cannot be overlooked.
Public office is a trust, not a personal fiefdom, and the days of unaccountable officials exploiting the system for personal gain must end. Let us ensure that the NAO, as a vital national institution, upholds the highest standards of professionalism and integrity.
Yours sincerely,
Nuha Ceesay
United Kingdom
