By Arret Jatta
In a tense and riveting day of testimony at the Local Government Commission of Inquiry, Mayor Talib Ahmed Bensouda tackled a barrage of questions so ‘aggressive’ regarding his role in the council’s day-to-day operations that at some point he asked if the lead counsel was a prosecutor so that he could bring his lawyer to the hearing.
Bensouda had always accused the Commission of unnecessary hostilities towards him because of his political difference and standoff with the central government on KMC matters. His appearance drew renewed attention from the public to the Commission’s public hearings with a palpable air of near animosity and fiery exchanges on display.
The core of the fiery exchange yesterday revolved around the extent of the mayor’s influence on the investigation bureau suggesting a more hands-on approach than the mayor acknowledged.
The proceedings kicked off with the introduction of key documents that the witness presented, including senior management team meeting minutes. These minutes became a focal point, with Lead Counsel Patrick Gomez using them to challenge the mayor’s assertions.
The minutes suggested the mayor’s direct involvement in the administration, which he repeatedly denied.
The mayor maintained that he offered guidance and support but was not part of the day-to-day decision-making process and described his role as a “glue” between management and the council, facilitating communication between different committees.
However, Lead Counsel Gomez countered these claims highlighting instances where the mayor appeared to be directly involved in decision-making processes, including the approval of expenditures and the giving of instructions.
Lead Counsel pointed out that the minutes indicated the mayor’s presence and influence in meetings, which contradicted his statements about not being a member of the senior management team.
The Lead Counsel brought out one of the minutes of an SMT meeting when the Director of Finance reported that the revenue has dropped significantly as a result of which the department is trying to control expenditure and forwarding payments exceeding D100,000 for the mayor’s endorsement”.
Mayor Bensouda responded that these were just minutes and that he does not decide the limits, and that it has never been forwarded to the mayor’s office.
The back-and-forth between the mayor and the Lead Counsel grew increasingly heated, with both sides firmly holding their ground.
The Lead Counsel repeatedly challenged the mayor’s statements, pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.
The mayor, in turn, insisted on his position, emphasising the importance of separation of powers and the limitations of his role.
Lead Counsel brought up the claims of previous KMC CEOs, who stated that they had to seek clearance from the mayor’s office.
Bensouda categorically denied this, stating that any such claims were false.
“What we are saying here is that your CEOs have repeatedly said that they had to seek clearance from you,” Counsel Gomez told the witness.
Mayor Bensouda replied:”With respect, I think you are answering on my behalf. I would appreciate if you would ask and allow me to submit the evidence. If this is a prosecution, I would ask that my lawyer is invited to join me”.
“Yes we welcome that,” Counsel Gomez said.
The chairperson of the commission, Jainaba Bah, intervened to clarify the rules and procedures of the commission, emphasising that the proceedings were a fact-finding mission and that all witnesses would be given the opportunity to express themselves and clarify issues.
Mayor Bensouda replied: “I am willing to stay here as long as you need me and give answers freely and truthfully.”
The witness said it is important for the Lead Counsel to allow him to present evidence.
The Lead Counsel supported the witness’s right to have a lawyer and insists that all questions must be answered, adding: “At no time did we not give the witness the rights that he deserved.”
