By Allieu S. Tunkara
The former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, who is also a Paramount Chief, has told the Commission of Inquiry, which is presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill, that the existing laws during the Ebola scourge provide no rules for procurement processes in emergency situations.
The ex-Permanent Secretary made this disclosure while offering evidence in respect of a bidding contract for the construction of a 90-bed Ebola treatment centre at Kerry Town in the Western Area of the country. The bidding contract entered into by the Ministry of Health and CL Brook Company Ltd. amounted to one billion seven hundred and sixty million leones (Le I, 760,000,000).
PC Kapua further informed the court that adherence to the rules of procurement provided for by law was very difficult as the then President Koroma had declared a state of Public Emergency to tackle the spread of the Ebola epidemic.
“The existing rules do not cover emergency procurement processes and following them will impede the operations of the Emergency Operation Centre” PC Kapua stressed.
During cross examination, which was conducted by counsel representing persons of interest, Ady Macauley and Williams, PC Kapua explained that the Construction of the Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Centre was necessary and that he wrote a letter dated 5th August 2014 to the CL Brook Company Ltd. requesting it to embark on the construction project. This was after having sought approval from the National Public Procurement Authority.
The said letter was admitted in evidence for the defence and marked Exhibit D-6.
The witness further informed the court that the bidding contract was signed by the then Minister of Health, Miatta Kargbo and the CL Brook Company Ltd. He continued that 50% payment of the said sum was made after 30 days of the signing of the contract document.
The former vote controller admitted that he was an alternate signatory to the Ebola Account and that withdrawals were made in accordance with lay down procedures.
“Myself and the Directors of Financial Services are alternate signatories to the account,” he emphasised.
In another related development, the Risk Manager of the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank, Abdul Rahman Mustaba, also previously tendered a list of debtors labelled P1100 of the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank(SLCB) in evidence implicating former President Bai Koroma and Ministers of government for non- repayment of loans.
He informed the tribunal that although there are procedures for obtaining loans from the bank, but he had given them out without any asset as collateral security.
The loans, according to P1100, amounted to billions of leones, including the principal sum and the interest rate.
In his response to a clarification sought by Justice Biobele George Will, as to why unsecured loans were given out, the Risk Manager replied that they are personal loans tied to the worker’s salaries and that the business entity must be verified to be an ongoing business concerned with sufficient cash flows.
He told the tribunal that loans to government officials are recovered from the payment of salaries. Most times, he continued, these loans become irrecoverable as a result of termination of the worker’s services, diversion of a worker’s salary to another institution and difficulties encountered by business organisations.
The Presiding Judge, Biobele Georgewill, warned that senior managers of the bank be brought before the Commission to account for the tax payers’ money through giving out loans without security.
“A day will come when the higher authorities of the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank will appear before the Commission to explain why they give out loans without alternate means of getting back the tax payers’ money,” Justice Biobele said.
The three Commissions of Inquiry are currently investigating actions of past government officials relating to public assets, government processes and procedures and, most importantly, the use of public funds.
The opposition All People’s Congress have always criticized the Commission of Inquiry which they describe as a “Kangaroo-styled” court, accusing it of selective justice, protectionism and the absence of rules to regulate the practice and procedure of all Commissions of Inquiry.