Report of the Auditor -General · audit report covering the CDF of Grand Kru County for the FY...

Report of the Auditor

Grand Kru County AdministrationFY 2006/07-2007/08 John S. Morlu, II Auditor-General, R.L.

Report of the Auditor-General

County Administration 2007/08

General, R.L.

General

i Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

Office of the Auditor-General Republic of Liberia

10 December 2010 TRANSMITTAL LETTER REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL ON GRAND KRU COUNTY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2006/2007 AND 2007/2008

1. I am pleased to issue this report, which is the second audit I have commissioned on the

accounts and related records of the Grand Kru County Administration including the County

Development Fund (CDF). The report covered the financial years 2006/ 2007 and 2007/2008.

2. A number of key findings conveyed in this report were formerly reported in my first forensic

audit report covering the CDF of Grand Kru County for the FY 2005/2006. Those findings were

not addressed and implemented by the Authorities of the County.

3. As indicated in the methodology segment of this report, all findings conveyed in the report were

formally communicated to the Authorities of Grand Kru County for their responses. The

reportable issues were submitted through Audit Observation Memoranda and a Draft

Management Letter, and where responses were provided they were evaluated and incorporated

verbatim in this report. Essentially, the Superintendent and other county officials were given the

maximum opportunity to respond to issues raised during the course of the audits.

4. For the period under audit, financial activities and the conduct of the affairs of Grand Kru

County were marred by irregularities and major control deficiencies that accrued losses to the

Government of Liberia and thus, timely resolution by the Legislature and the Executive are vital.

A total of US$340,272.11 of the US$366,666.67 CDF was expended on 15 projects during the

audit for 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, respectively.

5. In account #10210185022016, I noted other irregular withdrawals in the tune of US$18,640.00

paid in the name of PMC Treasurer Michael K. W. Tarweh. In furtherance of acquitting the

US$18,640.00, the Assistant Superintendent submitted documents indicating that the payments

were purportedly made to various universities.

6. As noted, a payment voucher submitted for the students at the Tubman National Institute of

Medical Arts (TNIMA) and Stella Maris Polytechnic indicated US$1,300.00 for 13 students, with 7

at TNIMA and 6 students at Stella Maris. But the attached listing indicated that 16 students

purportedly received money from TNIMA. There is no listing for Stella Maris Polytechnic. The

US$1,300.00 voucher and receipts were meant to acquit part of the undocumented payments in

the tune of US$18,640.00 paid in the name of PMC Treasurer Michael K.W. Tawreh. It is also

indicated on the listing of TNIMA that US$450.00 was provided to sixteen (16) students,

US$100.00 for union and travel fees and US$150.00 for expediter and facilitator fees. This gave

a combined total of US$700.00 as reflected on the payment voucher. But interestingly, the

purported receipt number 45599 purportedly issued by JFK Medical Center Tubman National

ii Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

Institute of Medical Arts (TNIMA) and stamped by a TNMIA Business Manager’s office indicated

US$700.00. This means that TNMIA also received payment for union and travel fees, and

expediter and facilitator fees. The inconsistency on the unapproved Student Listing and

payment voucher denied assurance on the reliability of the document submitted.

7. I further examined the receipts submitted by Stella Maris Polytechnic. It was signed by a

Jefferson Nagbe. Independent confirmation with Stella Maris indicated that a Jefferson Nagbe is

not in the employ of the Stella Maris Polytechnic and the purported receipt issued bearing the

insignia of Stella Maris Polytechnic does not belong to the Polytechnic. This clearly showed that

Assistant Superintendent Wisseh manufactured the receipts and submitted them for audit

which was meant to acquit the US$600.00. This is a contravention of Section 12.31 of the

Penal Code, which forbids the altering, forging and submission of documents that is known to

be lacking in authenticity. Regulation N-3 of the PFM Regulation also prohibits the submission of

false documents to acquit expenditure in Government.

8. I did not accept PMC Chairman Wreh contention that, “That the Auditing team should

understanding that the community projects are not failed but delayed.” As indicated in

subsequent paragraphs some of the projects did not even start, although the money was paid

to the contractors.

9. One (1) of the four (4) companies contracted on CDF projects did not exist as a registered

entity in Liberia. This was established through a confirmation obtained from the Ministry of

Commerce and Industry. But the authorities of Grand Kru County signed two contracts that

indicated that the company was a legally established entity under the laws of Liberia.

10. I informed the County Authorities that the contracts awarded to unregistered businesses could

provide no remedy for a breach. Regulatory laws, such as a business registration requirement,

are intended to protect the public against incompetence, frauds, etc. The Superintendent and

Assistant Superintendent did not exercise the minimum professional due care to ensure that at

the very least this company met the legal capacity requirement. This was a noted breach of

Section 32 (1f) of the PPC Act, 2005. Further the Grand Kru County Authorities violated Section

4.2 of Chapter 4 of the Business Law of Liberia. Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 states “No person shall

conduct or carry on a business unless he has registered such business with the Assistant

Minister, who shall perform his duties under this chapter subject to the direction and control of

the Minister of Commerce and Industry. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall

be subject to a fine not less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment not less

than one month or more than one year or both”.

11. The contravention of the procurement law created an opportunity for the county authorities to

award contracts to companies, without much regard to determining the financial condition of

companies awarded contracts. Tax identification requirements were also not met. These basic

requirements are contained in Section 32 of the PPC Act, 2005. Furthermore, from the review of

financial documents and the Bank Statement, it was noted that all the contractors did not pay

service tax to the Liberian Government, causing the Government a loss in revenue.

12. For the period under audit, the Grand Kru County Authorities undertook thirteen (13)

construction projects and one (1) road rehabilitation project, and the purchase of equipment for

iii Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

road rehabilitation and construction, again bringing the total projects to fifteen (15) projects.

Additionally, there was a scholarship program.

13. As noted in the report, the Grand Kru County Authorities made nearly 100 percent payments on

the fourteen (14) projects associated with construction of structures and road rehabilitation, but

as my physical inspection revealed these 14 projects are yet to be completed. It is indicated in

the report that Six (6) projects have not started, three (3) projects are at foundation Level, four

(4) projects were incomplete and one (1) project with only sticks planted in the ground. Of the

four (4) uncompleted projects, substantial works were done on the Barclayville Generator House

Project and the Barclayville City Hall Project.

14. The fourteen (14) construction and road rehabilitation projects were contracted to various

contractors and individuals for a total contract of US$147,317.00, representing forty (40)

percent of the total CDF of US$366,666.67. It is instructive to note that the County Authorities

without due regard to the terms as specified in the contracts which required three installment

payments, paid the purported contractors and individuals US$140,397.11, representing 95.30

percent of the total contract sum for the 14 projects. The amount of US$140,397.11 also

represented 38.29 percent of the CDF of US$366,666.67 for the periods 2006/2007 and

2007/2008.

15. All the contractors though paid by the county authorities, defaulted in the implementation of the

projects. Superintendent Sneh in attempting to exonerate herself from the wrong done to the

people of Grand Kru County stated:

“Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight. The PMT

elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to the PMC. Once the

PMC, as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the Superintendent cannot reject. The

PMC again prepares the contract with all the payment terms stipulated and once the

contract is signed by all parties the Superintendent countersign same. The actual payments

are by the PMC even though the Superintendent approves the voucher. So when I asked

about the payment terms on the voucher, I am told by the PMC that due to the difficulty in

transporting the materials to Grand Kru County, the payment was ordered once, instead of

three installments. Therefore, I Rosalind Sneh cannot be held accountable for the PMC’

responsibility”.

16. I noted the Superintendent’s response and appreciate the explanation provided. But such

explanation was not substantive to cure the opportunity loss to the citizens of Grand Kru

County. Instead of responding to the substantive issues raised in the report, Superintendent

Sneh blamed the PMC and the PMT. The Superintendent in her response provided a material

justification why she and other Grand Kru officials should be held liable. She rightly indicted

herself by saying:

“Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight. The

PMT elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to the

PMC. Once the PMC, as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the

Superintendent cannot reject. The PMC again prepares the contract with all the

payment terms stipulated and once the contract is signed by all parties the

Superintendent countersign same. “

iv Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

“The PMC again prepares the contract with all the payment terms stipulated and

once the contract is signed by all parties the Superintendent countersign same. The

actual payments are by the PMC even though the Superintendent approves the

voucher. So when I asked about the payment terms on the voucher, I am

told by the PMC that due to the difficulty in transporting the materials to Grand Kru

County, the payment was ordered once, instead of three installments.”

17. The Superintendent admitted to counter-signing the contracts, which means that she was

aware of the status of the contractors. She also authorized payments to the contractors and

cannot divorce herself from the legal and financial dealings on the projects. Superintendent

Sneh placed her legal reliance on the Budget Law 2007/2008. But she failed to also note that

there is no provision in the Budget law 2007/2008 that provides her the substantive authority

to attest to contracts or approve payment vouchers. The Budget Law only provides that the

Superintendent serves as the second A signatory to the CDF bank account, signing checks only

in the event that the Assistant Superintendent for Development is absent.

18. As noted in the observation, payments were to be made in three installments, but examination

of the Bank Statements and vouchers revealed that a total of US$140,397.11 against the total

contract cost of US$147,317.00 was paid on fourteen projects. This represents 95.30 percent

of the total contract sum for the projects. These payments were made without much regard to

the payment terms in the contracts, contracts that were attested by Superintendent Sneh.

Superintendent Sneh provided the following unsubstantiated excuse for her lack of oversight

on the projects:

“So when I asked about the payment terms on the voucher, I am told by the PMC

that due to the difficulty in transporting the materials to Grand Kru County, the

payment was ordered once, instead of three installments.”

19. By her own admission, Superintendent Sneh is indicating that she was aware that contract

payments terms were being violated. Instead of insisting on the payment terms to protect

public resources in the event of a default on the part of the contractor, she duly approved all

the payments. Superintendent Sneh did not produce a single document to support her

contention that she queried the violation of the payment terms.

20. A Fayiah Henneh, President and Supervisor of NAFAPD abandoned the projects and fled from

Grand Kru. NAFAPD, as confirmed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, is an illegal

establishment. Mr. Henneh did not perform on the contracts, though the Superintendent and

her officials made a total payment of US$18,994.44 on the two projects. County Builders

Construction Company also defaulted in the implementation of the Gbeatao Town Hall Project

and Nifao Clinic Project after receiving US$19,130.84. The Gbeatao Project is at foundation

level whereas the contractor has not commenced work on the Nifao Town Project. This has

denied the citizens of Grand Kru their timely benefit of development projects financed by the

Government of Liberia. The Superintendent and her officials did not provide any evidence of a

legal action taken to enforce performance by the contractors.

21. By not doing a simple background check on the NAFAPD, the Superintendent and her officials

violated Section 32 (1f) of the PPC Act, 2005 by knowingly awarding contract to an illegal

entity. A violation of the PPC Act, 2005 is punishable under Section 138 (1) of the PPC

v Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

Act, 2005. They also violated Section 4.2 of the Business Law which states states “No person

shall conduct or carry on a business unless he has registered such business with the Assistant


the Minister of Commerce and industry. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall

be subject to a fine not less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment not

less than one month or more than one year or both”.

22. Superintendent Sneh provided the following non-material justification to explain her lack of

oversight:

“Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight.

The PMT elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to

the PMC. Once the PMC, as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the

Superintendent cannot reject”.

23. By her assertions, Superintendent Sneh recognized the statutory responsibility of the PMC and

PMT to provide oversight but failed to recognize her own statutory responsibility. She is the

Superintendent of the County and a signatory to the CDF account. She counter-signed a

contract in which there is a clause that clearly indicated that NAFAPD is a company duly

registered and operating under the laws of Liberia. This was a material misinformation as it is

confirmed that NAFAPD does not exist as a legal company in Liberia.

24. By Superintendent’s Sneh failure to remedy material breaches in contract performance and her

lack of oversight, the Government of Liberia was exposed to fraudsters operating illegal

companies for the purpose of stealing funds from Government coffers through fraudulent

procurement schemes. Superintendent Sneh should accept full responsibility for the role she

played on the CDF, as she signed contracts and financial documents.

25. Superintendent Sneh’s reliance on the Budget Law 2007/2008 was baseless and unsupported

as the same Budget Law did not make provision for her to sign contracts and financial

documents. By affixing her signature to contracts and financial documents in contravention of

the Budget Law 2007/2008, she became active participant in the expending of CDF monies

to illegally operated contractors, and contractors that have not performed, although received

payments.

26. Project Management Committee (PMC) Chairman Johnson T. Wreh’s, also blamed the lack

of performance on the bad roads when he contended, “Bad roads are major constraint in

implementing projects in Grand Kru County; yet commitment and seriousness are guiding

principle in our drive to successfully implement projects in the County."

27. Superintendent Sneh and PMC Chairman Wreh failed to note that the doctrine of impossibility,

impracticability, and frustration of purpose excuse performance only if a supervening

circumstance was not reasonably contemplated or foreseeable when the contract was made.

Unreasonable rain and deplorable road condition in April to November 2008 is not such a

circumstance in Liberia, much less Grand Kru. Bad road condition is an ordinary business risk in

Grand Kru. Bad road condition is no news in Liberia, much less a county that is deemed as the

“forgotten” County due to its bad road and poor infrastructure. Additionally, the purchase of

vi Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

materials in Monrovia is a noted business practice in Liberia and therefore cannot be used as

an excuse to contravene provisions of contracts and agreements.

28. In the implementation of the CDF in Grand Kru County, conflict of interest was noted. Two

projects were awarded to the Grand Kru County Resident Engineer, Nyandeh Sieh. Nyandeh

Sieh received a total of US$13,550.00 for the construction of the Generator House Project

and the Kplio Road Rehabilitation Project. After receiving US$9,550.00, representing 95.5

percent of the contract sum of US$10,000.00, Nyandeh failed to implement the Kplio Road

Project.

29. Awarding contracts to a serving county official is an indication of conflict of interest. The

Grand Kru County Authorities and Nyandeh Sieh contravened Section 131 (1c) of the PPC

Act, 2005 and Article 90 (a) of the Constitution of Liberia. While the Superintendent does not

recognize that conflict of interest exist in the Generator House Project, she admitted to

conflict of interest in the Kplio Town Road Rehabilitation Project. In her response to the

observations on the Generator House Project she stated:

“The County Authority therefore used an employee, a general builder who was the County

Engineer. The person who held the post before tenure was Development Coordinator. This is

why it was on the EDP payroll. It was the very MIA, though its template that changed the

title to County Engineer. This is not conflict of interest.”

30. In her response to the Kplio Road Rehabilitation Project, Rosalind Sneh stated:

“When it was brought to our attention that our employee, Nyandeh Sieh signed a contract with

the PMC for the Kplio Road Rehabilitation Project, and entered into contract with the German

Agro Action (GAA), we immediately requested Mr. Nyandeh Sieh to resign his post with

government because this particular case is conflict of interest. Mr. Nyandeh Sieh complied and

resigned on March 6, 2009”.

31. The Superintendent was paradoxical in her response. The two issues are a glaring conflict of

interest and the Superintendent sanctioned this conflict of interest by attesting to the contracts

entered into with her own Engineer. The Superintendent is conflicted in her response.

32. In furtherance of conflict of interest in Grand Kru County, the Authorities knowingly engaged the

services of PMT Member Daniel Wiah for the Barfowin Town School Building Project, D. Wah

Hne/Representative Slopadoe for the Buah Guest House and Betu PMC Member Abacus K.

Nimene, for the Renovation of a School Building in Betu. Awarding projects to technicians who

should be checking contractors for compliance is glaring conflict of interest.

33. As noted the 14 projects, which include thirteen construction projects and one Road

Rehabilitation, undertaken in Grand Kru County are incomplete and notably as indicated in the

table supra, majority of the structures are either at foundation level or have not started at all.

The County Authorities failed to take remedial measures against defaulting contractors, except

in the case of Nyandeh Sieh where he resigned upon the request of the Superintendent but is

yet to pay the US$9,550.00 he received for the Kplio Road Rehabilitation Project for which he

did not rehabilitate.

vii Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

34. For the period under review, citizens of Grand Kru County decided to purchase an earth moving

equipment, one dump truck, one new double cabin pick-up, one new motor bike, fuel oil and

lubricants. This was a major project in the County with a cost of US$199,875.00. The contract

was awarded to Monrovia Developer Management Corporation (MDMC). I checked with PPCC

and it was confirmed that Grand Kru did not obtain a No Objection as the Threshold Schedule of

the PPC Act, 2005 indicated that an amount above US$100,000.00 for goods should be

internationally competitively bided. This was not done and therefore led to a violation of the

Threshold provisions of the PPC Act, 2005.

35. On 6 May 2008, in fulfillment of the contract, the PMC raised voucher #0997 and 0998 in the

name of MDMC EXPRESS Inc, and issued Ecobank check #787726 and #787727 in the amount

of US$167,525.00 and US$32,350.00 respectively in favor of MDMC. By this the county pre-

financed the project and made 100 percent payment to the contractor.

36. On 10 August 2008, MDMC General Manager John S. Youboty addressed a progress report on

the shipment of the equipment to the Grand Kru County PMC Chairman indicating that the

equipment will arrive at the Free Port of Monrovia from 25 September 2008 to 6 October 2008.

The equipment arrived and was held at the Port by the National Port Authority for duty payment

for over three months. MDMC however sought and obtained duty waiver through MIA as per the

contract. The equipment was cleared at the NPA but General Manager Youboty did not make

available delivery note to confirm that the equipment have been delivered to the PMC in keeping

with the contract.

37. Besides the truck and the bike, the rest of the equipment is currently at the MDMC yard on 13th

Street, Sinkor. The equipment arrived in November 2008 and has not been delivered, thus

creating an opportunity loss for the Government of Liberia and a denial of development for the

Citizens of Grand Kru. For years running the equipment have been on showcase, with no real

value added to the people of Grand Kru County. This is a two year material loss to the

Government of Liberia, because the equipment has not created jobs and development in Grand

Kru County, thus not impacting the lives of people in stranded Grand Kru, which is considered

cut-off from the rest of Liberia.

38. Superintendent Sneh provided a response that is not substantive to cure the deficiency noted.

She did not even bother to address the issue of the US$32,350.00 for fuel and lubricant for

which no accounting was made. Superintendent Sneh also did not provide material justification

for the payment for fuel and lubricant in advance when the equipment had not even arrived in

Liberia. The payment for fuel and lubricant cleared the Bank on 5 May 2008, while the

equipment arrived in Monrovia in November 2008 and has not been in operation as of date,

October 2010.

39. In her response to the draft management letter in October 2010, the Superintendent has

confirmed that the equipment is still in Monrovia since it was brought in November 2008. The

Superintendent maintained:

“A new management contract between Grand Kru County and MDMC for the transfer,

operation and management of the equipment has been concluded. The contract runs from

15th October 2010 to 14th December 2010.”

viii Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

40. The equipment was fully paid for and was to be delivered in August 2008. Instead it was

delivered in November 2008. It has been in Monrovia since November 2008, depriving

development to the citizens of Grand Kru. This was a clear waste of public resources, as of date

(nearly 2 years later) the equipment is still not in use.

41. Superintendent Sneh also contended that the County has again entered another agreement with

the same company that purchased the equipment, allowing the company use of the equipment

for the period running between 15 October 2010 and 14 December 2010. Grand Kru County has

now entered the leasing business, as a lessor of equipment purchased with CDF for the

development of the County.

42. Examination of the Bank Statements, with the A/C # 1020136022019, revealed that a number

of payments were made to serving county officials and others, including Superintendent

Rosalind Sneh and Assistant Superintendent for Development T. Michael Wisseh in the tune of

US$16,260.00. There was no material justification and supporting documentation provided to

acquit these payments.

43. The Superintendent in her response provided an expenditure report of how she used the

US$14,633.00 noted in the audit report as payments made in her name. She stated that

US$14,633.00 was spent on labor cost without material justifications and supporting

documentation to acquit the expenditure. As noted in the Forensic Audit Report of 2005/2006,

out of the US$66,666.67 allocated to Grand Kru County, US$16,670.00 was deposited in the

Grand Kru County Development Fund Account bearing account number 10210136022019, held

at the Ecobank for labor and administrative costs.

44. Out of the amount of US$16,670.00 deposited in the CDF Account (Account

#10210136022019), the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Development

withdrew US$16,260.00. As indicated in the 2005/2006 Forensic Audit Report, the

Superintendent provided receipts of expenditure in the tune of US$10,142.50, leaving a variance

of US$6,118.00 unaccounted for by the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for

Development. The Superintendent failed to provide receipts and material justifications for the

US$6,118.00 that she and her development Superintendent withdrew from the Bank.

45. I recommended that in future undertaking of CDF projects, the Minister of Internal Affairs

should coordinate with the Ministry of Public Works to approve architectural designs and inspect

construction work. I also recommended that the Minister of Internal Affairs also work with the

Director General of the General Services Agency to certificate all equipment purchased under

the CDF. In similar token, the Minister of Internal Affairs should increase oversight of CDF

projects by ensuring that engineer’s reports, certificates of completion and project assessment

reports are prepared before payments are made to contractors.

46. As noted in my audits of the Ministry of Public Works, there are Resident Engineers assigned by

the Ministry of Public works in each of the fifteen counties. There is a need that county

instrumentalities coordinate their efforts in the achievements of Government programs. I am of

the conviction that these engineers are stationed in the counties for the purpose of undertaking

such functions, but the lack of coordination between line ministries and agencies is creating

opportunities for illegally operated companies to defraud Government.

ix Promoting Accountability, Transparency, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

47. I have also recommended that all contracts under the CDF should have a clearly defined

requirement of a performance bond and remedial actions to include estimated penalties for

default in the execution of contracts. It is indicated throughout this report and other reports on

the CDF that officials, employees and businesses do not appreciate the concept of opportunity

cost. Nearly all the projects were not implemented within the timeframe stipulated in the

contracts, thus denying timely development to the citizens within a reasonable time frame.

48. The total irregularities noted in the audit amounted to US$131,484.00, representing

breach of contracts, irregular transactions, undocumented transactions and lack of

compliance with laws and regulations. The US$131,484.00 excludes US$50,745.24 which

was derived from the US$28,745.24 paid to County Builders for three projects and the

US$22,000.00 paid to LICOME Inc for which I have recommended that County Builders and

LICOME Inc should be held for breach of contracts and made to pay general damages.

49. Her Excellency, the President of the Republic of Liberia, and the Speaker, House of

Representatives and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, the above issues are

symptomatic of others noted in this report. Because of their impact on the management of

public finances of the Grand Kru County Administration, I advise that their resolution should be

considered urgently.

Report of the Auditor General On the Grand Kru County Administration: FY 2006/07 & 2007/08

2 Promoting Transparency, Accountability, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 4

AUDIT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 4

AUDIT SCOPE ............................................................................................................................... 4

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 5

FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF GRAND KRU COUNTY ........................................................................... 5

PROJECTS RESOLUTION ................................................................................................................ 6

GRAND KRU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT FUND (CDF) PROJECTS STATISTICS ....................................... 7

COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT SECRETARIAT (CDSS) UNCLEARED STATUS ................................ 8

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (DDC) ................................................................................. 9

DETAILS OF GRAND KRU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECTS ............................................... 12

TREMBO PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 12

SIKLIO COMMUNITY PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 16

BARCLAYVILLE CITY HALL PROJECT ............................................................................................. 19

GBETAO PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 23

GYABO PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 26

NIFAO PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 28

BARCLAYVILLE GENERATOR HOUSE PROJECT............................................................................... 34

PROJECT STATUS ....................................................................................................................... 34

BOLLOH PROJECT ....................................................................................................................... 37

BUAH PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 39

FRAUDULENT SCHEME ................................................................................................................ 40

FORPOH PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 41

JLOH PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 42

JRAO (SASS TOWN) CITY PROJECT .............................................................................................. 44

KPLIO PROJECT .......................................................................................................................... 46



QUALOH COMMUNITY PROJECT ................................................................................................... 49

AUDITOR GENERAL’S POSITION .................................................................................................. 61

GRAND KRU COUNTY SPORTS FUND UNACCOUNTED FOR ............................................................. 63

MISSING COUNTY GENERATOR ................................................................................................... 65

COUNTY SOURCES OF INCOME .................................................................................................... 66

CELLCOM CONTRACT .................................................................................................................. 66

BANK STATEMENT ANALYSIS — FIRST ACCOUNT ......................................................................... 68

BANK STATEMENT ANALYSIS—SECOND ACCOUNT ........................................................................ 70

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY ............................................................................................... 76

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 77

ACCOUNTABILITY SCHEDULES ……………………………………………………….…………………………………………78 EXHIBITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 79

Acronyms/Abbreviations/Symbols

Acronym/Abbreviation/Symbol Meaning

A/c # Account Number

A G Auditor General

BMC Building Material Center

CBO County Based Organization

CDF County Development Fund

CDSS County Development Support Secretariat

CSA Civil Service Agency

FY Fiscal Year

GAC General Auditing Commission

GOL Government of Liberia

GSA General Services Agency

L$/LD Liberian Dollar

LICOME, Inc

Liberia Construction and Maintenance Enterprises,

Incorporated

MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs

MoC Ministry of Commerce

MoF Ministry of Finance

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPW Ministry of Public Works

PMC Project Management Committee

PMT Project Management Team

PPC Public Procurement & Concessions

PPCC Public Procurement & Concessions Commission

SCDC Special County Development Council

US$/USD United States Dollar



Background

1. On 16 December 2008, I commissioned a Special Forensic Audit of all county administrations of

the 15 political subdivisions of Liberia and county development projects undertaken by county

administrations. The audit of Grand Kru County covered monies provided in 2006/2007 and

2007/2008 County Development Fund to the tune of US$366,666.67 and other revenue and

expenditure.

Audit Objectives

2. The objectives of the Special Forensic Audit were to:

• Verify whether projects were executed in a transparent manner and that there was no fraud,

waste or abuse of Government of Liberia resources.

• Assure that financial transactions were in line with the Budget Law of 2006/2007 and

2007/2008, including sufficient appropriate documentation for expenditure.

• Assure that contracts awarded under the CDF and expenditure incurred from other funds

were consistent with various provisions in the Public Procurement & Concession (PPC) Act,

2005.

• Assure that appropriations for the CDF were not exceeded and funds expended were used

for the purposes of development in the County.

• Assure that professional due care was exercised during the awarding and implementation of

projects.

• Assure that contract execution was done consistent with contract terms and that sufficient

and timely remedial actions were taken in cases of defaults.

Audit Scope

3. The audit included the examination of several financial documents to meet reporting

requirements as defined in Section 53.7 of the Executive Law of 1972 as well as various

provisions of the Revenue Code of 2000 and Public Procurement and Concessions (PPC) Act,

2005. The following relevant financial and related information formed the integral part of the

audits:

• County Personnel & Payroll

• County Development Fund

• County Sports Development Fund

• Other revenues generated by the county administration



4. A separate report on Personnel and Payroll were jointly compiled by GAC and Civil Service

Agency (CSA) and submitted to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Finance and the

President on 5 April 2010.

Methodology

5. The audit approach included review and examinations of records pertaining to the contracting

and implementation of fifteen (15) projects financed by the CDF.

6. Conducted physical verifications of all 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Projects funded under CDF.

7. Met and interviewed community members and members of Project Management Committee

(PMC), and relevant county authorities.

8. Audit Observation Memoranda (AOMs) were raised and issued to the Superintendent and other

relevant officials of the County. A Draft Management Letter was also issued to Superintendent

and relevant authorities, and where responses were received; they were duly evaluated and

incorporated verbatim in this report.

Financial Resources of Grand Kru County

Observation

9. A review of the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Budgets revealed that the Government of Liberia

appropriated for Grand Kru County US$812,237.66 as indicated in Tables 1 and 2 .

Table 1: Grand Kru County Budget Audited

Table 2: Grand Kru County Budget: Not Audited By GAC

Program

2006/2007 Budgetary Appropriatio

ns

2007/2008 Budgetary

Appropriations.

Opening of

Critical Roads MPW

Total

Appropriations

US$143,310.00 US$255,594.00 US$30,000 US$428,904.00

2006/2007

County

Developme

nt Fund

2007/2008

County

Developme

nt Fund

2006/2007

National

Football

Developme

nt

2007/2008

National

Football

Development

Total

US$166,667 US$200,000 US$3,333.33 US$13,333.33 US$383,333.66



10. The appropriations in the National Budget for County Administration and the funding for the re-

opening of critical road segments by the Ministry of Public Works (MPW) in Grand Kru County

were not audited by the GAC. A special audit will be conducted on the Critical Roads Budget and

an audit of MIA will include the audit of the County Administration Budget.

11. The County Development Fund and the National Football Development Budgets were audited.

Additionally, other sources of income identified in Grand Kru County including land leased to

GSM companies for installations of communication towers and municipal taxes collected there-

from were also audited.

Projects Resolution

Observation 12. After the transfer of the fund to the Grand Kru County Development Fund Account#

10210185022016 at the Eco Bank by GOL, the citizens of Grand Kru County under the banner of

head of delegates and delegates of the Special County Council met in Barclayville City, Grand Kru

County where they resolved and adopted the below resolution.

a. The Project Management Committee (PMC) be headed by:

• Johnson T. Wreh, Chairman

• Michael K. W. Tarwreh, Sr., Treasurer

• E. Nyewoti Wollor, Assistant Treasurer

b. An account should be opened at the Eco-bank Liberia, Ltd.

c. CDF in the amount of US366,666.67 is allocated and expended in the following manner:

Table 3: Projects Adopted Based Upon Resolution

Projects Amount (USD) Amount (USD) Purpose

CDF $366,666.67

Equipment $200,000.00

Operations and Maintaince of Basic

Roads

Community Development Initiate $120,000.00

US$10,000 to each community to be

spent and accounted for as Budget Act

Youth Development Initiative $10,000.00 Support to youth programs

Development of Capital City, layout and

meeting hall $22,000.00 Construction/Renovation

Administrartive work of the Project

Management Committee (PMC) $3,000.00 Remuneration/Benefits

Purchase of Motorbike for PMC $3,000.00 Remuneration/Benefits

Administrartive work of the Project

Management Teams (PMT) $2,000.00 Remuneration/Benefits

Reserved for Contigency $2,000.00 Meet unexpected expenditure

$4,000.00 $366,000.00

Balance 666.67



d. The Resolution also indicated that the Special County Council will reconvene at a time to be

determined by the Legislative Caucus in consultation with the county Superintendent. This was

intended to address the issue of the selection of the critical road segment.

Grand Kru County Development Fund (CDF) Projects Statistics

Observation 13. During my review of records in Grand Kru, I observed that 15 projects were awarded by the

PMC and the County Authorities to contractors, an unregistered business, the County Engineer,

PMT Members, and a number of individuals as indicated in the table below:

Table 4: Grand Kru Project Statistics



14. Of the 15 projects undertaken, I observed that six projects were not started at all, three projects

were at foundation level, four projects were incomplete, one project with only sticks planted in

the ground and the earth moving equipment/others though delivered by MDMC, but still at the

vendor’s office.

County Development Support Secretariat (CDSS) Uncleared Status

Observation

15. The County Development Support Secretariat (CDSS), a technical monitoring unit in the Ministry

of Internal Affairs (MIA), status at MIA is not clear. Though CDSS is housed within the MIA

compound and building with UNDP donated MIA assigned vehicles, its staff are not employees of

MIA. They are neither on MIA profile and organizational chart nor do they carry MIA

identification cards. CDSS has no legislative enactment, as it is not mentioned in the Budget

Law, 2007/2008 as it is the case with other institutional arrangements contained in the Budget

Law, such as the legal mandate to create a PMC.

16. Michael C. George is CDSS Program Manager. He took over from George Kollie who managed the

CDSS during the 100 Community Driven Projects in 2005/2006 when the Government of Liberia

initiated the County Development fund with the initial appropriation of US$1,000,000.00.

17. Program Manager George indicated that he received support from the following sources:

• US$5,000.00 contribution provided by each county from its annual county development fund

for 2006/2007 and 2007/2008. This was agreed through a reported consensus reached by

the 15 counties of Liberia. Exhibit 1.

• Program Manager George however indicated that though a consensus was reached between

the CDSS and the 15 counties of Liberia for every county to contribute US$5,000.00 each

from its annual County Development Fund as a support to the CDSS’ operational budget,

only five counties complied. Grand Kru County did not cooperate.

• I also observed the quarterly disbursement of non-taxable income of US$10,950.00 by MIA

Comptroller, Brown Sarlee from the MIA account for 9 (nine) CDSS staff as salaries. This

request for payment was made on salaries request form No. 048 dated 11 December 2008.

For this transaction, an unsealed and unnumbered voucher was prepared by the Comptroller

dated 12 December 2008 signed by the Comptroller and Minister Ambulai Johnson, and paid

on check #0428991. Exhibit 2.

18. For the period under audit, oversight by CDSS was not effective. Superintendents and other

county administration did not follow the Budget Law and the procedures established by MIA

through CDSS.



Risk 19. The undefined status of the CDSS could put its existence and operations at risk, because it

would work at the sole discretion of a Minister and discretionary practices could lead to fraud,

waste and abuse of public resources.

20. During the period under audit, CDSS did not have a written contract/MOU with the MIA to

support its activities but received funding from MIA and County Development Fund. This could

deny assurance on the regularity of the payments.

21. The lack of an MOU and operating manual could further increase the risk of conflict of interest to

the sole benefit of members of the CDSS to the detriment of the County Development Fund and

MIA Budget, as funding for CDSS could be arbitrarily increased to the disadvantage of the

counties.

Recommendation

22. MIA should legitimize the status of CDSS and strengthen or disband it with immediate effect.

23. Oversight by the Minister of Internal Affairs should be strengthened with enforced periodic

reporting and regularized monitoring of projects and program implementation.

Management’s Response to Audit Observation Memorandum and Draft management Letter

24. Audit observation was submitted to former Minister Ambullai Johnson, Program Manager Michael

George, and MIA Comptroller Sarlee. As of August 2010 no responses were provided by

management.

District Development Committee (DDC)

25. On 18 September 2007 an agreement was entered into between the United Nations

Development Program (UNDP) in Liberia and the District Development Committee (DDC) of all

the Districts in Grand Kru County.

26. The DDC was set up by the UNDP to assist in organizing and setting up the Project Management

Committee (PMC) and to monitor community based projects and other UNDP sponsored projects.

27. After the agreement was signed, the UNDP provided the below assets valued US$4,114.85 to

each administrative district in Grand Kru County, where DDC maintains its presence:



Table 5: UNDP Assets Provided to each DDC

TRANSPORT

Item Qty Unit Cost Total in USD

Motorbike 1 3,000.00 3,000.00

STATIONARY


Plain Paper 4 reams 5.00 20.00

Plain envelopes 2 boxes 5.00 10.00

Yellow

pad/steno pad

12 pcs 1.50 18.00

Pen 4 boxes 5.00 20.00

Pencil 4 boxes 5.00 20.00

Manual

sharpener

2 sets 25.00 50.00

Stapler 2 sets 6.00 12.00

Manual Type-

writer

1 set 282.00 282.00

Ribbons 4 pcs 1.40 5.60

Correction fluid 5 bottles 1.75 8.75

Dissolvent 2 bottles 1.75 3.50

Diaries 6 pcs 9.00 54.00

Wall Calendar 1pc 3.00 3.00

FURNITURE


Small filing

cabinet

1 set 110.00 110.00

Wooden table 1 set 310.00 310.00

Chairs 1 pc 63.00 63.00

Desk 1 set 125.00 125.00

Total US$4,114.85

28. The assets represent assistance from UNDP, through its Community Based Recovery Program to

DDC through MIA. It was meant as a contribution to promote recovery, development and the

overall welfare of every district, referred to in the agreement.

29. A review of the agreement entered into between the DDC and UNDP, indicated that the DDC

acknowledged and agreed that the above listed UNDP donated assets valued at US$4,114.85

would be used solely for the purpose specified below:

• Monitor projects financed through the County Development Fund and donor sponsored

projects.



• Failure of DDC to use the Assets solely for the purpose as specified in the Agreement may

subject UNDP to request that the Assets be returned to UNDP.

• Upon the transfer of the Assets, the DDC shall be solely liable for all maintenance for the

Assets, without any assistance or further obligation from UNDP to provide funding for the

operation and/or repairs at anytime during the life of the assets.

• The DDC acknowledged and agreed that UNDP is not obligated to provide addition assets or

to replace the assets upon any loss, damage or expiration of the assets.

• The DDC acknowledged and agreed that it is solely liable for all insurance coverage if any

that may be required to protect the assets against loss, theft or damage.

• The DDC accepted the assets from UNDP Liberia “as is” and agreed that UNDP offers no

warranty and is released from all liability relative to any claim, loss liability or damage arising

from the DDC use of the assets.

30. I established the existence of the UNDP donated assets in all of the districts in Grand Kru

County. It was however difficult to establish the operational effectiveness of the DDC, as I was

not provided with any evidence of reports submitted by the DDC to the Superintendent or CDSS.

Risk

31. The DDC may not achieve its objectives in the absence of demonstrated support by MIA.

32. DDC is assumed to provide a monitoring and oversight role, its reporting arrangement to the

Superintendent could lead to collusion and thereby undermine its effectiveness.

Recommendation 33. The Minister of Internal Affairs should provide support to the efforts of the District Development

Committees to make them more effective and responsive to the districts’ needs.

34. DDC should report to the Minister of MIA through the CDSS, with quarterly reports submitted on

its operation and status of development projects in the districts. The reporting should include

deviations and recommendation for remedial actions.

Management’s Response 35. Audit Observation Memorandum was submitted to former Minister Ambullai Johnson, Program

Manager George, and MIA Comptroller Sarlee. As of August 2010, no response was provided by

management. Management Letter was also submitted in August 2010 but no responses were

provided as of October 2010.



DETAILS OF GRAND KRU COUNTY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECTS

Trembo Project

Observation

36. The Trembo Project was the construction of a Guest House in Behwan City, Grand Kru County by

NAFAPD, an unregistered company represented by its President and Supervisor, Fayiah Henneh.

The Ministry of Commerce informed me that NAFAPD does not exist as a legal entity to

conduct business in Liberia, as confirmed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 22 July

2008.

37. In order to further authenticate the legal existence of NAFAPD, I wrote to the Ministry of

Commerce and Industry, a Government entity charged with the responsibility of regulating all

commerce and industry related activities in the country to confirm the legal status of the Liberia

Land Construction Company. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry replied and indicated that

NAFAPD does not exist as a legal entity, as per their Business Registry Data.

38. By entering into contractual agreement with the County Authorities, the Superintendent and PMC

breached Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 of the Business Law of Liberia. Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 states

“No person shall conduct or carry on a business unless he has registered such business with the

Assistant Minister, who shall perform his duties under this chapter subject to the direction and

control of the Minister of Commerce and industry. Any person violating the provisions of this

section shall be subject to a fine not less than US$10.00 and not more than US$1,000.00 or

imprisonment not less than one month or more than one year or both”. Section 32 of the PPC

Act, 2005 also requires that companies contracted for Government projects are duly registered

and have tax identifications.

39. The contract for this project was signed on 15 April 2008 between the Grand Kru County PMC

and NAFAPD at the cost of US$10,000.00 to construct a Guest House in Behwan, Trembo

Statutory District.

40. Article lll of the contract stipulated that the contractor shall effect all works on the contract

within a period of nine months whilst Article V stipulated that the contract shall be completed in

three months commencing from the date of the signing of the agreement. These two provisions

in the contract were contradictory as one provision indicated 9 months and the other indicated 3

months completion time frame.

41. It was stipulated that the first payment of 35 percent would be paid upon signing of the contract

to complete 40 percent of the work. The second payment of 35 percent would be paid after 75

percent completion of the project. Third & final Payment of 30 percent would be paid upon

completion of the project.



42. The contract document further stipulated that “10

installment payment to cover latent defects that may be found to exist in the works completed.

The aggregate retention monies shall be released to the contr

maintenance period”.

43. All these payment terms were violated, as indicated below:

Table 6: Gross Payment on the Trembo Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

44. A payment voucher was raised on 1

contractor Fayiah Henneh of NAFAPD to the tune of US$9,650.08. This amount was booked on

the Bank Statement on

contractor Fayiah Henneh, repres

45. As noted the check number on the

the Bank Statement, but the payee and the amount on both the voucher and the Bank

Statement were the same.

Project Status

46. The Project was inspected in February 2009. Since 15 April 2008, the date the contract was

signed, the project has not started at all. Community members spoken to indicated that since

the contractor took their money and returned with five bundles of

seen him. See photo of the project site

Photo 1: Paramount Chief and Elder Stand at Designated Site of the Trembo Project

Date Payee

4/23/2008 Fayiah Henneh

On the Grand Kru County Administration: FY 2006/07 & 2007/08

Promoting Transparency, Accountability, Integrity and Fiscal Probity

The contract document further stipulated that “10% retention would


The aggregate retention monies shall be released to the contractor at the expiration of the

All these payment terms were violated, as indicated below:

Gross Payment on the Trembo Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

A payment voucher was raised on 18 April 2008 with check number 7877


on 23 April 2008 on check number 787722 paid in the name of the

, representing 96.5 percent of the total contract

As noted the check number on the payment voucher was different from the check number on


Statement were the same.

Project was inspected in February 2009. Since 15 April 2008, the date the contract was


the contractor took their money and returned with five bundles of 14-gauge zinc, they have not

seen him. See photo of the project site and community members at the project site:

Paramount Chief and Elder Stand at Designated Site of the Trembo Project

Payee Check Number Amount

Fayiah Henneh 787722 $9,650.08

would be held from each


actor at the expiration of the

Gross Payment on the Trembo Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

check number 787719 in the name of


on check number 787722 paid in the name of the

enting 96.5 percent of the total contract cost.

voucher was different from the check number on


Project was inspected in February 2009. Since 15 April 2008, the date the contract was


gauge zinc, they have not

project site:

Paramount Chief and Elder Stand at Designated Site of the Trembo Project

Amount

$9,650.08



Photo 2: Paramount Chief and Community Members at Designated Site of the Trembo Project

Risk

47. Failure to adhere to the provisions of the PPC Act, 2005 could lead to various forms of fraudulent

procurement schemes.

48. Conducting business with companies that do not have the potential and capacity to deliver could

undermine the effective and efficient

to deliver on contractual terms.

49. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead

abscond with public monies without immediate remedy.

50. Lack of assessment reports and certificate

could lead to lack of completion of projects within stated time frame

51. The non-provision of supporting financial documents to support payments made to contractors

signals poor financial management, as funds could be disbursed without any authorization.

52. Contracts given to entities not registered could deny

developmental purposes, as an illegally operated company may not pay taxes.

Recommendation

53. The following persons should be held jointly and severally accountable for negligently awarding a

contract to an unregistered entity named NAFADP in contra

2005 and Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 of the Business



Paramount Chief and Community Members at Designated Site of the Trembo Project

Failure to adhere to the provisions of the PPC Act, 2005 could lead to various forms of fraudulent

Conducting business with companies that do not have the potential and capacity to deliver could

undermine the effective and efficient use of public resources, as the company may not be able


The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors


reports and certificates of completion show no evidence of supervision

could lead to lack of completion of projects within stated time frame.

provision of supporting financial documents to support payments made to contractors

financial management, as funds could be disbursed without any authorization.

given to entities not registered could deny Government of needed revenue required for

, as an illegally operated company may not pay taxes.

The following persons should be held jointly and severally accountable for negligently awarding a

contract to an unregistered entity named NAFADP in contravention of Section 32 of the PPC Act,

2005 and Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 of the Business Law of Liberia.

Paramount Chief and Community Members at Designated Site of the Trembo Project



use of public resources, as the company may not be able

situations wherein contractors could

of completion show no evidence of supervision. This

provision of supporting financial documents to support payments made to contractors

financial management, as funds could be disbursed without any authorization.

overnment of needed revenue required for

, as an illegally operated company may not pay taxes.

The following persons should be held jointly and severally accountable for negligently awarding a

tion of Section 32 of the PPC Act,



57. The Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that contracts are awarded only to entities that are

registered with the Ministry of Commerce as well as those that have Articles of Incorporation and

Tax Identification Numbers and current tax clearance.

58. The Minister of Internal Affairs should increase oversight of CDF projects by ensuring that

engineer’s reports, certificates of completion and project assessments reports are done in

conjunction with the Minister of Public Works.

59. The Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that county officials implement projects on the

basis of the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Act 2009,

Revenue Code, 2000 and CDF Guidelines prepared by MIA.

60. Particular attention should be paid to legal capacity, professional and technical qualifications,

demonstrable past performance, and financial resources and condition of companies seeking to

do projects under the CDF.

61. Minister of Internal Affairs should also ensure that all legally drawn contracts have a provision

for performance bond, duly probated by the Contractor.

Siklio Community Project

Observation

62. The Siklio Community Project is the construction of a US$10,000.00 Community Guest House in

Grand Cess City, Grand Kru County. The contract to construct this building was signed on 8 April

2008 between the Grand Kru County PMC and County Builders Construction Company, a

registered business within the Republic of Liberia, represented by its proprietor, Mr. Francis Nah

Nimene.



percent completion of the project. Third & final Payment of 30 percent is paid upon completion

of the project.

64. The contract document further stipulated that “10% retention shall be held from each







Table 9: Gross Payment on the Siklio Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

66. A payment voucher was raised on check number 787716 in the name of County Builders in the

tune of US$9,344.40. This amount was booked on the Bank Statement 28 May 2008,

representing 93.44 percent of the total contract sum.

Project Status 67. Inspection was done in February 2009. At the time of inspection, this project was still at

foundation level though the contract was signed on 8 April 2008 to be completed in three

months as of the date of signing the contract, meaning 8 July 2008. Below is the project that

was supposed to be completed on 8 July 2008 for which US$9, 344.40 was paid.

Photo 3: Siklio Community Guest House Project in Grand Cess City at a Standstill

Photo 4: Partial view of the Foundation of the Standstill Siklio Community Guest House in Grand Cess City

Date Payee Check Number Amount

5/28/2008 County Builders 787716 $9,344.40



68. The failure to complete the project in three months as of the date of signing the contract

constituted a breach by the contractor. My physical inspection of the project in February 2009

showed that the project was at foundation level and at a standstill.

69. Assessment report or an engineer’s report project was not availed for audit, though payments

were made. In the absence of an assessment report or an engineer’s report on the quality of

materials used during the construction, I cannot provide reasonable assurance that the

foundation was built to standard. I cannot also provide assurance that value for money is

achieved in the absence of an engineer’s report to determine whether the foundation is built to

standard.

Risk






72. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors abscond

with public monies without immediate remedy.

73. Lack of assessment reports and certificate of completion show no evidence of supervision, which


74. The non provision of supporting financial documents to support payments made to contractors

signals poor financial management, as funds could be disbursed without any authorization.

75. Contracts given to entities not registered could deny Government of needed revenue required for


Recommendation

76. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh Development Superintendent, J. Michael Wisseh, Project Planner,

PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh and PMT Chairman Augustine N. Wollor are held accountable

for defaulting in their responsibilities to provide reasonable oversight of project implementation.

77. The following individuals should further be held accountable for violating payment terms:

• Superintendent Rosalind Sneh

• Development Superintendent J. Michael Wisseh






78. Francis Nah Nimene and his Company, County Builders, should be held for breach of contract

and made to pay general damages for such breach as the Siklio Guest House Project remains at

foundation level. County Builders was paid US$9,344.40 and failed to complete the Siklio Guest

House Project.



Tax Identification numbers.


engineering reports, certificates of completion and project assessments reports are done in



basis of the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Law 2009,







Barclayville City Hall Project

Observation

84. The Barclayville City Hall project was awarded to LICOME, Inc. represented by its President Joel

V. Printers. This contract was entered into on 1 April 2008 to be completed in nine (9) months.

The total contract was valued at US$22,000.00.












Table 10: Gross Payment on the Barclayville City Hall Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

88. As indicated the payment terms were violated. The first payment constituted 80.53 percent,

while the final payment constituted 19.47 percent.

Project Status

89. Inspection was conducted in February 2009. The project as seen below is roofed, no floor, no

windows, no doors and ceilings, and wall partly plastered. Also the adjoining offices at the back

have not been roofed. Beside the foundation of the hall and that of the adjoining offices which

were done with concrete blocks, the walls were constructed with dirt bricks.

90. Below is the building for which US$22,000.00 was paid and remains uncompleted as at February

2009:

Photo 5: Inside View of the Barclayville City Hall for which US$22,000.00 was paid

Date Payee Check Number Amount Percent of Total

4/4/2008 Lib Const. and Maint. Ent. Inc 787709 $17,717.00 80.53%

8/28/2008 Lib Const. and Maint. Ent. Inc 787740 $4,283.00 19.47%Total $22,000.00 100.00%



Photo 6: External View of the Barclayville City Hall

91. The contractor blamed the delay of the project to difficulty encountered in getting construction

materials to Grand Kru. Review of financial request for the 2008/2009 fiscal period indicated that

another US$12,000.00 was requested by PMC and county officials to complete this building. This

brings the total cost to US$34,000.00, which represents 54.55 percent of increase over and

above the original contract cost.

92. No material justification and documentary evidence was provided to indicate that the contractor

should not be held accountable for not completing the project as schedule.

93. No Assessment Report, an Engineer’s Report or a Certificate of Completion of project was availed

for audit, though payments were made. In the absence of a certificate of completion, an

engineer’s report or an assessment report on the level of works done on the building, I cannot

provide reasonable assurance that the project was implemented satisfactorily. I cannot also

provide assurance that value for money was achieved in the absence of an engineer’s report to

determine whether the works done on the building were in accordance with standards.

Risk








96. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein could tractors abscond



could lead to incompletion of projects within stated time frame.

98. The absence of an engineer’s report, assessment report or a certificate of completion could

indicate that low quality material was used, thus denying value for money.



Recommendations

100. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Development Superintendent, J. Michael Wisseh, Project Planner,

PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh and PMT Chairman David Wichiey are held accountable for

defaulting in their responsibilities to provide reasonable oversight of project implementation.

101. The following individuals should further be held accountable for violating payment terms:



• Johnson T. Wreh, PMC Chairman

• Michael K. W. Tarwreh, Sr., PMC Treasurer

• E. Nyewoti Wollor, PMC Assistant Treasurer.

102. LICOME Inc. and its President Joel V. Printers should be held for breach of contract and made to

pay general damages for such breach as the Barclayville City Hall Project remains incomplete.

LICOME Inc was paid US$22,000.00 for the Barclayville City Hall Project but failed to complete

the Project.










basis of the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Act, 2009,







Gbetao Project

Observation

108. The Gbetao project is located in Picnic-Cess, Grand Kru County. It is the construction of a Town

Hall. The contract to construct Town Hall was awarded to County Builders Company represented

by its President, Francis Nah Nimene, on 7 April 2008 at the cost of US$10,000.00. The project

was to be completed in three months commencing from the date the agreement was signed, 7

July 2008. By 7 October 2008, the project should have been completed.


to complete 40 percent of the work. The second payment of 35 percent is paid after 75 percent

completion of the project. Third & final Payment of 30 percent would be paid upon completion of

the project.






Table 11: Gross Payment on the Gbetao Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

112. As indicated the payment terms were violated. The first payment constituted 94.48 percent of

the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked on the Bank

Statement on 28 May 2008.

Date Payee Check Number Amount5/28/2008 County Builders 787712 $9,479.41



Project Status

113. The project was inspected in February 2009. This project as seen below is still at foundation

level, and poorly attended to by the contractor. PMT Chairman N. Juwle Toe interviewed in

Picnic-Cess revealed that he was worried about the contractor lack of commitm

project. The PTM Chairman indicated that he sent a written complaint to the PMC Chairman in

Barclayville who awarded the contract. This is the project for which US$9,479.41 was paid:

Photo 7: The Status of the

114. No Assessment Report, an Engineer’s Report

availed for audit, though payments were made. In the absence of

engineer report or an assessment report

work done on the foundation was

for money was achieved in the absence of an enginee

building was built to standard.

Risk



116. Conducting business with companies that do not have the



117. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors coul




roject was inspected in February 2009. This project as seen below is still at foundation


Cess revealed that he was worried about the contractor lack of commitm

PTM Chairman indicated that he sent a written complaint to the PMC Chairman in


The Status of the Gbetao Town Hall project in Picnic Cess up to the time of GAC’s Inspection

, an Engineer’s Report or a Certificate of Completion of

though payments were made. In the absence of a certificate of com

or an assessment report, I cannot provide reasonable assurance that the

work done on the foundation was done satisfactorily. I cannot also provide assurance that value

achieved in the absence of an engineer’s report to determine whether the

built to standard.





The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors coul


roject was inspected in February 2009. This project as seen below is still at foundation


Cess revealed that he was worried about the contractor lack of commitment towards the

PTM Chairman indicated that he sent a written complaint to the PMC Chairman in


Gbetao Town Hall project in Picnic Cess up to the time of GAC’s Inspection

Certificate of Completion of the foundation was

certificate of completion, an

, I cannot provide reasonable assurance that the level of

satisfactorily. I cannot also provide assurance that value

r’s report to determine whether the


potential and capacity to deliver could


The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors could





119. The absence of an engineer’s report, assessment report or a certificate of completion could

indicate that low quality material was used, thus denying value for money.

120. Contracts given to entities that are not taxpayers could deny Government of needed revenue

required for developmental purposes.

Recommendation


PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh and PMT Chairman are held accountable for defaulting in their

responsibilities to provide reasonable oversight of project implementation.

122. The following individuals should further be held accountable for violating the contract payment

terms when they raised a payment voucher and paid to County Builders 94.48 percent of the

total contract sum as first payment when the contract stipulated 35 percent. This has put at risk

public resources as the project is abandoned:






123. Francis Nah Nimene and his company, County Builders, should be held for breach of contract

and made to pay general damages for such breach as the Gbetao Town Hall Project remains at

the foundation level. County Builders was paid US$9,479.41, by the Grand Kru County

Authorities, but failed to complete the Gbetao Town Hall Project.

















Gyabo Project

Observation

129. The Gyabo Community Project was the construction of a Town Hall in Garraway City, Trehn

District, Grand Kru County. The contract for this project was awarded to the Behwan Contractor,

NAFAPD represented by its President, Fayiah Henneh. The contract was signed on 15 April 2008

and the project was to be completed in three months as of the date of signing, meaning the

project was to be completed 15 July 2008. The contract sum was US$10,000.

130. As indicated in preceding paragraphs, NAFAPD is not a legal entity in Liberia, as confirmed by

the Ministry of Commerce.

131. It was stipulated that the first payment of 35 percent is paid upon signing of the contract to

complete 40 percent of the work. The second payment of 35 percent is paid after 75 percent

completion of the project. Third & final Payment of 30 percent is paid upon completion of the

project.






Table 12: Gross Payment on the Gyabo Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement


the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked on the bank

statement on 23 April 2008.


4/23/2008 Fayiah Henneh 787723 $9,344.44



Project Status

135. This project has not started. Gyabo PMT indicated that the contractor puts the blame on bad

road condition but promised to construct the Town hall during the dry season beginning October

2009. Contractor Fayiah did not start the project.

Risk






138. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors abscond




Recommendation

140. The following persons should be held jointly and severally accountable for negligently awarding a

contract to a non-registered and an illegally operated business entity named NAFADP in

contravention Section 4.2 of the Business Law and Section 32 of the PPC Act, 2005:



• PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh

• PMT Chairman, Thomas K. Nugba

141. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh Development Superintendent, J. Michael Wisseh, Project Planner,

PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh and PMT Chairman are held accountable for defaulting in their

responsibilities to provide reasonable oversight of project implementation.

142. The following individuals should further be held accountable for violating the payment terms

when they raised a payment voucher and paid to Fayiah Henneh of the illegal company NAFAPD

96.5 percent of the total contract sum as first payment when the contract stipulated 35 percent.

This has put at risk public resources as the project has not started:








143. The following individuals should further be held jointly and severally accountable and made to

restitute US$9,344.44. This amount represents the total payment to the illegally operated

company, NAFAPD.




• Treasurer, Michael K. W. Tarwreh, Sr.

• Assistant Treasurer, E. Nyewoti Wollor







146. Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that county officials implement projects on the basis of

the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Act, 2009, Revenue

Code, 2000 and CDF Guidelines prepared by MIA.






Nifao Project

Observation

149. The Nifao Project is the construction of a clinic in Po-River Middle Town, Trehn District, Grand

Kru County. The contract for this project was again awarded to County Builders Construction

Company, represented by its contractor, Francis Nah Nimene. The contract was signed on 10



April 2008 with a completion term of three months, meaning 10 July 2008. The total contract

was valued at US$10,000.




project.






Table 13: Gross Payment on the Nifao Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement


the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked Bank Statement on

5 May 2008.

Project Status

154. I inspected the project in February 2009 and at the time of inspection, contractor had not

commenced work, even though it was paid 96.51 percent of the contract sum and the check

cleared the bank on 5 May 2008.

Risk






157. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead situations wherein contractors could abscond


158. Contracts being given to entities not registered could deny government of needed revenue

required for developmental purposes.

Date Payee Check Number Amount5/28/2008 Francis N Nimene 787717 $9,651.43



Recommendation


PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh and PMT Chairman Amasie Sieka are held accountable for

defaulting in their responsibilities to provide reasonable oversight of project implementation.

160. The following individuals should further be held accountable for violating payment terms when

they raised a payment voucher and paid to County Builders 96.51 percent of the total contract

sum as first payment when the contract stipulated 35 percent. This has put at risk public

resources as the project is abandoned:




• Treasurer, Michael K. W. Tarwreh, Sr.

• Assistant Treasurer, E. Nyewoti Wollor

161. Francis Nah Nimene and his company, County Builders, should be held for breach of contract

and made to pay general damages for such breach as the contractor failed to commence work

on the Project up to the time of physical inspection. Francis Nah Nimene and his company,

County Builders, were paid US$9,651.43 but failed to implement the Project.



Tax Identification Numbers.









Superintendent Rosalind Sneh’s Response to the Draft Management Letter

CDF Community Projects 166. The GAC holds me accountable for defaulting in my responsibility to provide reasonable

oversight of the projects. I am also held liable for violating contract terms and for payment to



some illegal entities such as NAFAPD. That I along with others should restitute certain amount as

indicated on pages 11, 14, 19, 26, 27, and 37.

167. Response: In keeping with section 8 of the Budget Law governing County Development Funds,

Roman # X, the primary mandate of the PMC shall be to serve as the technical arm of the

Council in identifying and costing of projects; to oversee, coordinate and monitor the

implementation of approved projects; to ensure that all financial transaction documents are in

conformity with the public procurement regulations; to make quarterly report and submit said to

the County Superintendent, the County Legislative Caucus and the Council. Exhibits 2

168. Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight. The PMT

elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to the PMC. Once the PMC,

as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the Superintendent cannot reject. The PMC again

prepares the contract with all the payment terms stipulated and once the contract is signed by

all parties the Superintendent countersign same.

169. The actual payments are by the PMC even though the Superintendent approves the voucher. So

when I asked about the payment terms on the voucher, I am told by the PMC that due to the

difficulty in transporting the materials to Grand Kru County, the payment was ordered once,

instead of three installments. Therefore, I Rosalind Sneh cannot be held accountable for the

PMC’ responsibility.

Auditor General’s Position 170. I have noted the Superintendent response and appreciate the explanation provided. But such

explanation was not substantive to cure the opportunity loss to the citizens of Grand Kru County.

Instead of responding to the substantive issues raised in the report, Superintendent Sneh

blamed PMC and the PMT.

171. The Superintendent in her response provided a material justification why she and other Grand

Kru County officials should be held liable. She rightly indicted herself by saying:

“Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight. The PMT elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to the PMC. Once the PMC, as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the Superintendent cannot reject. The PMC again prepares the contract with all the payment terms stipulated and once the contract is signed by all parties the Superintendent countersign same. “ “The PMC again prepares the contract with all the payment terms stipulated and once the contract is signed by all parties the Superintendent countersign same. The actual payments are by the PMC even though the Superintendent approves the voucher. So when I asked about the payment terms on the voucher, I am told by the PMC that due to the difficulty in transporting the materials to Grand Kru County, the payment was ordered once, instead of three installments.”



172. The Superintendent admitted counter-signing the contracts, meaning that she was aware of the

status of the contractors. She also authorized payments to the contractors and cannot divorce

herself from the legal and financial dealings on the projects. Superintendent Sneh placed her

legal reliance on the Budget Law 2007/2008. But she failed to also note that there is no

provision in the Budget Law 2007/2008 that provides her the substantive authority to attest to

contracts or approve payment vouchers. The Budget Law only provides that the Superintendent

serves as the second A signatory to the CDF bank account, signing checks only in the event that

the Assistant Superintendent for Development is absent.

173. As noted in the observation, payments were to be made in three installments, but examination

of the Bank Statement and vouchers revealed that a total of US$69,469.28 of the total contract

cost in the tune of US$72,000.00 were paid on six projects . This represents 96.49 percent of

the total contract sum of the projects. These payments were made without much regard to the

payment terms in the contracts, contracts that were attested by Superintendent Sneh.

Superintendent Sneh provide the following unsubstantiated excuse for her lack of oversight:

“So when I asked about the payment terms on the voucher, I am told by the PMC that due to the difficulty in transporting the materials to Grand Kru County, the payment was ordered once, instead of three installments.”

174. By her own admission, Superintendent Sneh is indicating that she was aware that contract

payments terms were being violated. Instead of insisting on the payment terms to protect public

resources in the event of a default on the part of the contractor, she duly approved all the

payments. Superintendent Sneh did not produce a single document to support her contention

that she queried the violation of the payment terms.

175. A Fayiah Henneh, President and Supervisor of NAFAPD abandoned the projects and fled from

Grand Kru County. NAFAPD, as confirmed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, is an illegal

establishment. Mr. Henneh did not perform on the contracts, though the Superintendent and her

officials made a total payment of US$18,994.44 on the two projects. County Builders

Construction Company also defaulted in the implementation of the Gbeatao Town Hall Project

and Nifao Clinic Project after receiving US$19,130.84. The Gbeatao Project is at foundation level

whereas the contractor has not commenced work on the Nifao Town Project. This has denied

the citizens of Grand Kru timely benefit of development projects financed by the Government of

Liberia. Superintendent and her officials did not provide any evidence of a legal action taken to

enforce performance by the contractors.

176. By not doing a simple background check on the NAFAPD, the Superintendent and her officials

violated Section 32 (1f) of the PPC Act, 2005 by knowingly awarding contract to an illegal entity.

A violation of the PPC Act, 2005 is punishable under Section 138 (1) of the PPC Act, 2005. They

also violated Section 4.2 of the Business Law. Section 4.2 of Chapter 4 states “No person shall

conduct or carry on a business unless he has registered such business with the Assistant




the Minister of Commerce and industry. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall

be subject to a fine not less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment not less

than one month or more than one year or both”.

177. Superintendent Sneh provided the following non-material justification to explain her lack of

oversight:

“Therefore, it is the statutory responsibility of the PMC to provide that oversight. The PMT elected by the community selects their contractor and presents same to the PMC. Once the PMC, as the technical arm certifies the contractor, the Superintendent cannot reject”.

178. By her assertions, Superintendent Sneh recognized the statutory responsibility of the PMC and

PMT to provide oversight but failed to recognize her own statutory responsibility. She is the

Superintendent of the County and a signatory to the CDF account. She counter-signed a

contract in which there is a clause that clearly indicated that NAFAPD is a company duly

registered and operating under the laws of Liberia. This was a material misinformation as it is

confirmed that NAFAPD does not exist as a legal company in Liberia.

179. By Superintendent Sneh inaction to remedy material breaches in contract performance and her

lack of oversight, the Government of Liberia was exposed to fraudsters operating illegal

companies for the purpose of stealing funds from Government coffers through fraudulent

procurement schemes. Superintendent Sneh should accept full responsibility for the role she

played on the CDF, as she signed contracts and financial documents.

180. Superintendent Sneh’s reliance on the Budget Law 2007/2008 was unsupported as the same

Budget Law did not make provision for her to sign contracts and financial documents. By affixing

her signature to contracts and financial documents in contravention of the Budget Law

2007/2008, she became an active participant in the expending of CDF monies to illegally

operated contractors, and contractors that have not performed, although received payments.

181. Superintendent Sneh failed to note that the doctrine of impossibility, impracticability, and

frustration of purpose excuse performance only if a supervening circumstance was not

reasonably contemplated or foreseeable when the contract was made. Unreasonable rain and

deplorable road condition in April to November 2008 is not such a circumstance in Liberia, much

less Grand Kru County. Bad road condition is an ordinary business risk in Grand Kru County. Bad

road condition is no news in Liberia, much less a county that is deemed as the “forgotten”

County due to its bad road and poor infrastructure. Additionally, the purchase of materials in

Monrovia is noted business practice in Liberia and therefore cannot be used as excuse to

contravene provisions of contracts and agreements.

182. Superintendent Sneh’s responses are therefore not substantive. They cannot be sustained

administratively or judicially when challenged on the merits. I maintain all my recommendations.



Barclayville Generator House Project

Observation

183. Barclayville City has two projects: The construction of a generator house, and a City Hall in

Barclayville, Grand Kru County.

184. The generator house project was not among the original projects budgeted for in the County

Resolution. It was however financed from the contingency

various projects earmarked in the County’s resolution.

185. This was based on a memorandum from the Minister of Internal Affairs inst

use US$5,317.00 of its development fund to construct the generato

administration building in Barclayville City when the County, besides the Development fund, has

allotment within its budget for such project.

186. The PMC however yielded to the MIA request and awarded the contract to County Engineer

Nyandeh Sieh, on 19 April 2008 at the cost of US

US$4,000.00 for contingency and disbursed same to Mr. Sieh. The check was booked on the

bank on 24 April 2008:

Table 14: Gross Payment on the Barclayville City Generator

and Bank Statement

Project Status 187. Inspection was conducted in February 2009. The 30KVA UNDP donated generator has been

installed in this building. The building is under construction and needs steel door to complete

Below is the status of the project for which US$4,000.00 was paid to County Engineer Sieh:

Photo

Date

4/24/2008 Nyandeh Sieh



Barclayville Generator House Project

has two projects: The construction of a generator house, and a City Hall in

Barclayville, Grand Kru County.

The generator house project was not among the original projects budgeted for in the County

Resolution. It was however financed from the contingency fund of US$4,

various projects earmarked in the County’s resolution.

This was based on a memorandum from the Minister of Internal Affairs inst

317.00 of its development fund to construct the generato


allotment within its budget for such project.

The PMC however yielded to the MIA request and awarded the contract to County Engineer

andeh Sieh, on 19 April 2008 at the cost of US$5,317.00. The PMC however only had


Gross Payment on the Barclayville City Generator House Project as per Voucher

was conducted in February 2009. The 30KVA UNDP donated generator has been

installed in this building. The building is under construction and needs steel door to complete


Photo 8: Barclayville Generator House @ US$4,000.00

Payee Check Number

Nyandeh Sieh 787724

has two projects: The construction of a generator house, and a City Hall in

The generator house project was not among the original projects budgeted for in the County

,000.00 allocated for the

This was based on a memorandum from the Minister of Internal Affairs instructing the County to

317.00 of its development fund to construct the generator house to the county


The PMC however yielded to the MIA request and awarded the contract to County Engineer

5,317.00. The PMC however only had


House Project as per Voucher

was conducted in February 2009. The 30KVA UNDP donated generator has been

installed in this building. The building is under construction and needs steel door to complete.


Barclayville Generator House @ US$4,000.00

Amount

$4,000.00



188. No Assessment Report, an Engineer’s Report or a Certificate of Completion of project was availed

for audit, though payments were made. In the absence of a certificate of completion, an

engineer report or an assessment report, I cannot provide reasonable assurance that the project

was implemented satisfactorily. I cannot also provide assurance that value for money was

achieved in the absence of an engineer’s report to determine whether the building was built to

standard.

Conflict of Interest

189. I observed that Sieh, besides being an individual without attachment to any registered

construction company, is an employee of Grand Kru County Administration with payroll number

07-77-111-0007. I further observed that though Sieh was employed by the MIA in 2006 as

Engineer, but he is on the EDP payroll as Development Coordinator. This is a gross violation

of Article 90 (b) of the Constitution and Section 131 (1C), 4, and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.

190. MIA educational qualification listing indicates that Mr. Sieh is a high school graduate serving as

county engineer.

Risk

191. The use of the CDF projects contingency fund to construct a generator house that could be

financed from the funding provided the county through the National Budget could undermine the

undertaking of urgent development projects financed with funding earmarked under

contingency.

192. Conflict of interest could undermine value for money decision making, as contracts could be

awarded on the basis of familial and professional relationship rather than in the general interest

of the citizen of Grand Kru County.

Recommendation

193. The Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that the development funds are used for

development purposes and that the Council decisions are respected.

194. County Engineer Nyandeh Sieh should be held accountable for contravening Section 131 (1c), 4,

and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005 and Article 90 (b) of the 1986 Constitution, which prohibit conflict of

interest.










the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Law 2008, Revenue

Code 2000 and CDF Guidelines prepared by MIA.




Superintendent Rosalind Sneh’s Response

Barclayville Generator House:

199. As you rightly indicated, the construction of the generator house for the Administrative Building

from the CDF was authorized by the Minister of Internal Affairs with acquiesce of the Caucus.

The project was given to the County Authority to implement .The BOQ and the Cost Estimate of

the project was done by UNOPS and MIA with no workmanship or labor cost included. The

County Authority therefore used an employee, a general builder who was the County Engineer.

200. The person who held the post before tenure was Development Coordinator. This is why it was

on the EDP payroll. It was the very MIA, though its template that changed the title to County

Engineer. This is not conflict of interest. The house is concrete materials, very spacious and only

needs steel door for final completion. The total cost was US$5,317.00 and US$4,000.00 paid; the

balance US$1,317.00 is needed to purchase, transport and install the steel door. Exhibits 3.

Auditor General’s Position 201. I noted the Superintendent response that the project was predicated on an instruction from the

Ministry of Internal Affairs. I also noted her response that the BOQ and cost estimate of the

project was done by UNOPs and MIA with no workmanship or labor cost included

202. The Superintendent in her response failed to address the substantive issue and according to her

awarding contract to an employee is not conflict of interest. The Superintendent stated that “The

County Authority therefore used an employee, a general builder who was the County Engineer.

The person who held the post before tenure was Development Coordinator. This is why it was

on the EDP payroll. It was the very MIA, though its template that changed the title to County

Engineer. This is not conflict of interest.”

203. Nyandeh Smith is the County Engineer of Grand Kru County. He was also the vendor on the

project paid US$4,000.00. This is conflict of interest and a violation of Article 90(a) of the

Constitution of Liberia and Section 131 (1c) of the PPC Act, 2005 punishable under Section 138

(1) of the PPC Act, 2005. Payments were made in the name of County Engineer and the

Superintendent failed to produce receipts of materials purchased by the County Engineer.

204. Though the project was instructed by MIA, payment for the purchase of materials for this project

should have been made to vendor and not the County Engineer. The County Engineer is an



employee of Grand Kru County with an assigned payroll number. He should not be paid for

services rendered the county, because he is just performing his duties for which he is receiving

pay. The action of the Superintendent and her officials to pay the County Engineer was also a

breach of Article 90 (a) of the Constitution of Liberia.

Bolloh Project

Observation

205. The Bolloh community project is the construction of a school building in Barfowin Town, Doro

Statutory District, Grand Kru County. The Statutory District Superintendent is D. Slaymu Blamoh.

206. The Bolloh contract was entered into on 7 April 2008 between the Bolloh Community

represented by its Project Management Team Chairperson, F. Greenfield Bropleh, and the

contractor, Mr. Dennis Wiah who is a member of the PMT. The contract was stipulated to

be completed in 3 months, which was 7 July 2008. The contract value US$10,000.00.










Table 14: Gross Payment on the Bolloh Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

210. The first payment constituted 94.72 percent of the total contract value. Payment voucher was

raised on 9 April 2008 and check was booked on 18 April 2008.


211. A review of the contract file presented by the Grand Kru County PMC revealed that Mr. Dennis T.

Wiah, the contractor, is a member of the Bolloh Community PMT serving in the capacity as a

Project Technician. This is gross violation of Article 90 of the Constitution and Sections 131 (1C),

4 and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005 which prohibit conflict of interest.

Date Payee Check Number Amount4/18/2008 Dennis Wiah 787710 $9,472.30



Project Status 212. Project was inspected in February 2009

abandoned. Below is the structure for which US$9,472.30 was paid

the yard:

Photo 9: Bolloh District School Project in Barfow

Risk



214. Conducting business with individuals that do not have the potential and capacity to deliver could



215. The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead

with public monies without immediate


could lead to lack of completion of projects within stated time frame and cost over runs.

Recommendation

217. PMT Project Technician Dennis Wiah should

US$9,472.30 for not delivering on contractual terms.

218. PMT Project Technician Dennis Wiah should be held accountable for contravening Article 90 of

the Constitution and Sections 131 (1C), 4, and 5 of the

interest.



Project was inspected in February 2009 and during my inspection, the project

abandoned. Below is the structure for which US$9,472.30 was paid with only sticks planted in

Bolloh District School Project in Barfowin Town School @ US$9,472.30


Conducting business with individuals that do not have the potential and capacity to deliver could



The lack of adherence to payment terms could lead to situations wherein contractors abscond


Lack of assessment reports and certificate of completion show no evidence of supervision, which


PMT Project Technician Dennis Wiah should be held accountable and made to restitute

US$9,472.30 for not delivering on contractual terms.

PMT Project Technician Dennis Wiah should be held accountable for contravening Article 90 of

the Constitution and Sections 131 (1C), 4, and 5 of the PPC Act 2005 for engaging in conflict of

and during my inspection, the project has been

with only sticks planted in

in Town School @ US$9,472.30


Conducting business with individuals that do not have the potential and capacity to deliver could


situations wherein contractors abscond

Lack of assessment reports and certificate of completion show no evidence of supervision, which


d accountable and made to restitute the entire

PMT Project Technician Dennis Wiah should be held accountable for contravening Article 90 of

PPC Act 2005 for engaging in conflict of










the PPC Act, 2005, Budget Law and various financial laws including the PFM Act, 2009, Revenue

Code, 2000 and CDF Guidelines prepared by MIA.




Superintendent and PMC’s Response to Audit Observation Memorandum and Draft

Management Letter

223. An audit observation memorandum and the draft management letter were submitted. The

Superintendent and County officials did not provide a response as of 26 October 2010 when this

report was being compiled.

Buah Project

Observation

224. The Buah project is the construction of a US$10,000.00 Guest House in Buah, Gee City, Grand

Kru County. It was awarded to D. Wah Hne on 14 April 2008 for a total contract sum of

US$10,000.00.


complete 40 percent of the work. The second payment of 35 percent would be paid after 7










Table 15: Gross Payment on the Buah Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement


raised and check booked on bank statement on 30 April 2008.

Fraudulent Scheme 229. The contractor, D. Wah Hne, after receiving check # 00787718, took it to the office of Grand Kru

County Electoral District #1 Representative, Gbenimah B. Slopadoe. Representative Slopadoe

instructed his Administrative Assistant, G. Sakargepo Chea to accompany Hne to EcoBank in

Monrovia to cash the check and return to his office with the full amount.

230. Statutory Superintendent Thomas Dugbe informed me that there was a specific instruction from

a purported Buah people for the contractor to take the funds to the Buah District Representative

Office so that Representative Slopadoe and the contractor could jointly purchase the project

materials in Monrovia. But after encashing the check and while en route back to the Capitol

Building, the contractor D. Wah Hne absconded with the cash and has not been seen.

Promissory Note

231. Representative Slopadoe indicated he wanted to settle the matter. On 2 June 2008; he took

responsibility to restitute the money at the end of June 2008 and then personally go after the

contractor to recover. I was further told that he took responsibility on ground that he

recommended Hne. Exhibit 3—Promisory Note.

232. Despite the promissory note, I noted that Representative Slopadoe up to the writing of this

report is yet to fulfill his promise to restitute the entire amount of US$9,436.09.

Legal Action

233. I also learned from the Grand Kru County PMC Chairman, Johnson T. Wreh, in Barclayville that

legal action was instituted against the contractor, D. Wah Hne, in Monrovia where it was ruled

that his house in Monrovia be sold for US$10,000.00 to restitute the fund. Representative

Slopadoe confirmed the ruling but indicated that no buyer has shown an interest in the house.

Both the PMC Chairman and the Representative Slapadoe did not adduce documentary evidence

to support their assertions.

234. On 19 February 2009, Assistant Superintendent Wisseh issued a receipt indicating that

Representative Slopadoe has paid US$5,000.00 of the US$9,436.09. This amount was deposited

into the CDF account #10210185022016 on 2 February 2010; nearly a year after the receipt was

issued.


4/30/2008 D. Wah Nhe 787718 $9,436.09



Status of Project

235. This project did not start due to the absence of the contractor.

Risk

236. The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background check could lead to

awarding to unscrupulous individuals whose sole purpose is to defraud Government.

237. Awarding of a contract on a mere recommendation by a Legislator could deny value for money

decision and put public resources at risk of misappropriation.

Recommendation

238. Grand Kru County Electoral District # 1 Representative, Hon. Gbenimah B. Slopadoe, be made to

restitute the US$4,436.09 as per his promissory note.

239. Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that County Officials award contracts on the basis of

the PPC Act, 2005.

Forpoh Project

Observation

240. The Forpoh project is the construction of a US$10,000.00 Town Hall in Parluken Town, Forpoh

District, Grand Kru County. This contract was awarded to one Matthew Jugbo who was described

in the contract as a “professional person.”

241. It was a three month contract signed on 30 April 2008 to complete the construction of the Town

Hall. The contractor was paid the following:

Table 16: Gross Payment on the Forpoh Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

242. The check was paid and was booked on the bank statement on 28 July 2008. This one- time

payment constituted 94.38 percent of the total contract sum.

Status of the Project

243. The contractor has abandoned the project after signing the contract. This project should have

been completed within three (3) months period as per the agreement on 28 July 2008, but has

not started.

Risk



Date Payee Check Number Amount7/28/2008 Mathew Jugbo 787728 $9,437.92



Recommendation

245. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Assistant Superintendent for Development J. Michael Wisseh, PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh, Treasurer Michael K. W. Trawreh, Sr. and E. Nyewoti Wollor Should be made to restitute US$9,437.92 representing money paid to Matthew Jugbo for the construction of the Forpoh Town Hall Project for which Matthew Jugbo did not perform.


the PPC Act, 2005.


Management Letter

247. An Audit Observation Memorandum and a Management Letter were submitted to the

Superintendent and County officials. No responses were provided.

Jloh Project

Observation

248. The Jloh Project is located in Betu City, Jloh Statutory District, Grand Kru County. It is a major

renovation of a school building. The Jloh/Betu contract was entered into between the PMC and

Abacus K. Nimene on 2 April 2008. Mr. Nimene was given four (4) months to complete and turn

over this project to the PMT/Community, by 2 August 2008.

249. The Project Management Team (PMT) was established to coordinate the planning of all activities

relating to the project and the processing and presentation of project documents to relevant and

concerned entities. The PMT reported to the citizens of the District. Abacus K. Nimene is a

member of the Betu PMT.


250. The awarding of contract to a member of the PMT constitutes conflict of interest. As indicated,

the Jloh/Betu contract was entered into between the PMC and Abacus K. Nimene who is also a

member of the Betu PMT.

251. PMC and the County Authority in Barclayville had the listing of the Betu PMT members sent to

them by the Betu citizens on TCM Form dated 11 December 2007. This form listed Abacus K.

Nimene as Project Technician and yet still a contract was awarded to him.




project.





The aggregate retention monies shall be



Table 17: Gross Payment on the Jloh Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement


the total contract value. The p


Legal Action

256. The contractor, PMT Abacus

US$10, 000.00 and failing to implement the project, was sued by the community for failing to

adhere to the completion term of the contract and for abandoning the job.

257. Development Chairman of Bet

magisterial court in Nifu where US

project by defendant Abacus K. Nimene was retrieved. This material was turned over to a ne

contractor, Joseph Nimene, hired by the community.

258. J. Jasper further indicated that their Statutory Superintendent, Amos Peter, who baffled the case

after the complaint was first reported to him, was also sued by the community along with

Abacus Nimene. This was a positive demonstration of a citizens’ action to right a wrong.

Status of Project

259. Work on this project is on

second contractor, Mr. Joseph Nimene. This is the building for which

Date

4/22/2008 Abacus K Nimene





: Gross Payment on the Jloh Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

As indicated the payment terms were violated. The first payment constituted 94.46 percent of

The payment voucher was raised and the check was booked on bank


The contractor, PMT Abacus Nimene, after receiving US$9,446.35 of the contract cost of



Development Chairman of Betu City, J. Jasper indicated that the legal action was instituted in the

magisterial court in Nifu where US$7,446.35 worth of construction materials purchased for the

project by defendant Abacus K. Nimene was retrieved. This material was turned over to a ne

contractor, Joseph Nimene, hired by the community.

J. Jasper further indicated that their Statutory Superintendent, Amos Peter, who baffled the case


This was a positive demonstration of a citizens’ action to right a wrong.

Work on this project is on-going as timbers are being prepared and nailed for roofing by the

second contractor, Mr. Joseph Nimene. This is the building for which US$9,446.35 was paid:

Photo10: Status of the Jloh Project in Betu

Payee Check Number

Abacus K Nimene 787711

released to the contractor at the expiration of the

: Gross Payment on the Jloh Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement


check was booked on bank

Nimene, after receiving US$9,446.35 of the contract cost of



u City, J. Jasper indicated that the legal action was instituted in the

7,446.35 worth of construction materials purchased for the

project by defendant Abacus K. Nimene was retrieved. This material was turned over to a new

J. Jasper further indicated that their Statutory Superintendent, Amos Peter, who baffled the case


This was a positive demonstration of a citizens’ action to right a wrong.

going as timbers are being prepared and nailed for roofing by the

US$9,446.35 was paid:

Amount

$9,446.35



Photo11: GAC Staff in Jloh at the Jloh Project site in discussion with Mr. J. Jasper, Betu Development Chairman

Risk

260. The awarding of contracts to individuals without


Recommendation

261. Abacus K. Nimene should be made to restitute US$2,000.00, representing the balance

unaccounted for after court action.

262. Abacus K. Nimene should be

undermined and delayed

interest was a direct contravention of Article 90

and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.


the PPC Act, 2005.

Superintendent and PMC’s

Management Letter

264. An Audit Observation Memorandum and a Management L

Superintendent and County officials. No responses were provided

Jrao (Sass Town) City Project

Observation

265. The Jrao (Sass Town) project was the renovation of the Administrative Building in Jekwikpo City,

Jrao (Sass Town) Statutory District, Grand Kru County. Adolphus

Superintendent for this district.



GAC Staff in Jloh at the Jloh Project site in discussion with Mr. J. Jasper, Betu Development Chairman

The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background check

unscrupulous individuals whose sole purpose is to defraud Government.

Abacus K. Nimene should be made to restitute US$2,000.00, representing the balance

after court action.

Abacus K. Nimene should be held accountable for engaging in conflict of interest which

and delayed a development project financed with taxpayers’ funds

interest was a direct contravention of Article 90 (a) of the Constitution and Sections 131 (1C), 4

and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.

Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that County Officials award contracts on the basis of

’s Response to Audit Observation Memo

An Audit Observation Memorandum and a Management Letter were submitted to the

Superintendent and County officials. No responses were provided by 28 October 2010

Jrao (Sass Town) City Project

Town) project was the renovation of the Administrative Building in Jekwikpo City,

Jrao (Sass Town) Statutory District, Grand Kru County. Adolphus

Superintendent for this district.

GAC Staff in Jloh at the Jloh Project site in discussion with Mr. J. Jasper, Betu Development Chairman

adequate background checks could lead to


Abacus K. Nimene should be made to restitute US$2,000.00, representing the balance

accountable for engaging in conflict of interest which

project financed with taxpayers’ funds. This conflict of

of the Constitution and Sections 131 (1C), 4

Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure that County Officials award contracts on the basis of

Response to Audit Observation Memorandum and Draft

etter were submitted to the

by 28 October 2010.

Town) project was the renovation of the Administrative Building in Jekwikpo City,

Togba, Jr is Statutory



266. The Jrao project was awarded to a local contractor,

construction company nor is he a member of any legally registered entity. He was awarded the

contract by the PMT, PMC and the County Authority. The contract was awarded on 3 April 2008

and it was to be completed in

contract. The schedule completion


complete 40 percent of the work. The second p


project.



The aggregate retention monies shall be released to the contractor at the ex



Table 19: Gross Payment on the Jrao Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

270. The first payment constituted 98 percent of the total contract value.

raised and the check was booked on

Status of Project

271. The Jrao project as seen below is abandoned. The contractor blamed the delay on the

unavailability of power saw to saw timbers for the building.

US$9,800 was paid:

Photo12: Status of Jrao District project in Sasstown @ 9,800.00

Date

4/29/2008 Paul Tregbe



The Jrao project was awarded to a local contractor, Paul Tregbe who neither has a registered



be completed in three months commencing from the date of

contract. The schedule completion date was 3 July 2008.

It was stipulated that the first payment of 35 percent is paid upon signing of the contract to

complete 40 percent of the work. The second payment of 35 percent is paid after 7


The contract document further stipulated that “10% retention shall be held from each


The aggregate retention monies shall be released to the contractor at the ex



The first payment constituted 98 percent of the total contract value. The p

check was booked on the bank statement on 29 April 2008.

The Jrao project as seen below is abandoned. The contractor blamed the delay on the

unavailability of power saw to saw timbers for the building. Below is the project for which

Status of Jrao District project in Sasstown @ 9,800.00

Payee Check Number

Paul Tregbe 787715

Paul Tregbe who neither has a registered



three months commencing from the date of the signing the

It was stipulated that the first payment of 35 percent is paid upon signing of the contract to

ayment of 35 percent is paid after 75 percent


The contract document further stipulated that “10% retention shall be held from each




The payment voucher was

bank statement on 29 April 2008.

The Jrao project as seen below is abandoned. The contractor blamed the delay on the

Below is the project for which

Status of Jrao District project in Sasstown @ 9,800.00

Check Number Amount

787715 $9,800.00



272. The excused the contractor provided was challenged by the Statutory District Superintendent

Adolphus Togba who informed me that US$1,800.00 was allocated in the contract materials

listing to purchase one German made power saw but the contractor did not buy it. The

contractor admitted to the assertion made by District Superintendent Togba’s when he indicated

to me, “I used the money on transportation”.

Risk

273. The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background checks could lead to

awarding of contract to unscrupulous individuals whose sole purpose is to defraud Government.

Recommendation

274. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Assistant Superintendent Johnson T. Wreh, PMC Chairman

Michael Wesseh, PMC Treasurer Michael J. K. Trawreh and PMC Assistant Treasurer Nyewoti

Wollor should be made to restitute US$9,800.00, representing the amount paid to the local

contractor, “Paul Tugbe. The local contractor did not perform as the project remains incomplete.


the PPC Act, 2005.

Management’s Response


Superintendent and other County Officials, but no responses were provided.

Kplio Project

Observation

277. The Kplio project is the rehabilitations of the roads from Kayken to Big Fleneken and from Big

Suehn to Filoken, Barclayville Chiefdom, Barclayville District. The contract for this project was

awarded to Nyandeh Sieh, an employee of MIA on 4 April 2008. This was a three (3) months

contract to be completed on 4 July 2008.




project.








Table 20: Gross Payment on the Kplio Project as per Vo


raised and check was booked on


282. Sieh who signed the contract is a member of the KPLIO PMT. Besides, Nyandeh Sieh works with

the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) Grand Kru County Administration as an Engineer, while a

contractor on the CDF. This is a gross violation of Article 90

131 (1C), 4 and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.

Project Status

283. This project is yet to start. Nothing has been done by the contractor

representing 95.5 percent of contract sum has been paid

Photo 13: Status of Kplio Project: Road Rehabilitation from Kayken to Big Fleneken

Date

4/24/2008 Nyandeh Sieh



Table 20: Gross Payment on the Kplio Project as per Voucher and Bank Statement

The first payment constituted 95.50 percent of the total contract value. Payment voucher was

raised and check was booked on the Bank Statement on 24 April 2008.

Sieh who signed the contract is a member of the KPLIO PMT. Besides, Nyandeh Sieh works with


contractor on the CDF. This is a gross violation of Article 90 (a) of the Constitution and Sections

131 (1C), 4 and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.

This project is yet to start. Nothing has been done by the contractor

representing 95.5 percent of contract sum has been paid. See photo of road b

Status of Kplio Project: Road Rehabilitation from Kayken to Big Fleneken

Payee Check Number

Nyandeh Sieh 787714

ucher and Bank Statement

The first payment constituted 95.50 percent of the total contract value. Payment voucher was

Sieh who signed the contract is a member of the KPLIO PMT. Besides, Nyandeh Sieh works with


the Constitution and Sections

This project is yet to start. Nothing has been done by the contractor, although US$9,550.00

. See photo of road below:

Status of Kplio Project: Road Rehabilitation from Kayken to Big Fleneken

Check Number Amount

787714 $9,550.00



Photo14: Status of Filorkin Road up to the time of Inspection by GAC

284. It was revealed that the citizens of the community have being brushing the Filorken -Fleneken

roads on their own

Risk

285. The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background checks could lead to

awarding of contracts to unscrupulous individuals whose sole purpose is to defraud Government.

Recommendation

286. Nyandeh Sieh should be made to restitute US$9,550.00, representing the amount he received

and did not perform.

287. Nyandeh Sieh should further be held accountable and legally sanction for contravening Article

90(a) and Sections 131 (1C), 4 and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.


the PPC Act, 2005.


Kplio Project: 289. Your observation (225) on this project is very correct.

290. Response: When it was brought to our attention that our employee, Nyandeh Sieh signed a

contract with the PMC for the Kplio Road Rehabilitation Project, and entered into contract with

the German Agro Action (GAA), we immediately requested Mr. Nyandeh Sieh to resign his post



with government because this particular case is conflict of interest. Mr. Nyandeh Sieh complied

and resigned on March 6, 2009.Exhibit 4

Auditor General’s Position 291. I have noted the Superintendent’s response that the act was a conflict of Interest. I have also

noted the action taken by the Superintendent in calling for the resignation of the County

Engineer. But the Superintendent did not adduce any evidence that Nyandeh Sieh has restituted

the US$9,550.00 paid to him for which no work was done on the roads from Kayken to Big

Fleneken and from Big Suehn to Filoken, Barclayville Chiefdom, Barclayville District.

292. She also did not provide any evidence showing that the county has taken legal action against

Nyandeh Sieh. All efforts should be made to ensure that County Engineer Sieh make immediate

restitution and pay general damages as well for the opportunity loss to the Government of

Liberia in terms of timely delivery of a development project financed by taxpayers’ monies for

which no work was performed.

Qualoh Community Project

Observation

293. The Qualoh Community Project is the construction of a School building in Gbanken, Wedabo

Chiefdom. The contract for this project was signed on 4 April 2008. The Qualoh Community was

represented by PMT Chairman, Mr. Nathaniel Kowoh, while Samuel M. Nyemah, II signed as

the contractor.

294. Project Management Team Co-chairman D. Wiefue Nyanneh indicated that the school project

comprises of twelve (12) classrooms. This project was stipulated to be completed in three

months on 4 July 2008.




project.








Table 21: Gross Payment on the Qualoh

Statement


the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked on

statement on 29 May 2008.

Project Status

299. The project was inspected in February 2009. From the photo the foundation for this project was

dug just few days before the audit team arrival, and as indicated this project was paid to be

completed on 4 July 2008. Below is the statu

Photo 15: Qualoh Community School Project in Gbanken, Webbo Chiefdom

300. The project was to be completed in three (3) months as of the date of signing the contract. The

contract was signed on 4t

completing the project.

Risk


awarding of contracts to unscrupulous individuals whose sole purpose is to defraud Government.

Recommendation

302. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Assistant Superintendent Johnson T. Wreh, PMC Chairman

Michael Wesseh, PMC Treasurer Michael

and PMT Chairman Nathaniel Kowoh

amount paid to a “Samuel M. Nyemah”

Date Payee5/29/2008 Samuel M. Nyemah



Table 21: Gross Payment on the Qualoh Community Project as per Voucher and Bank


the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked on

008.

roject was inspected in February 2009. From the photo the foundation for this project was


4 July 2008. Below is the status of the project for which US$9,785.17

Qualoh Community School Project in Gbanken, Webbo Chiefdom

The project was to be completed in three (3) months as of the date of signing the contract. The t April 2008. But contrary to this, the contractor, Nyemah II, is far from

The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background check could lead to


Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Assistant Superintendent Johnson T. Wreh, PMC Chairman

sseh, PMC Treasurer Michael K. W. Trawreh, PMC Assistant Treasurer Nyewot

and PMT Chairman Nathaniel Kowoh should be made to restitute US$9,785.17, representing the

paid to a “Samuel M. Nyemah” for which only the foundation of the Project was dug.

Payee Check NumberSamuel M. Nyemah 787721

Community Project as per Voucher and Bank


the total contract value. Payment voucher was raised and check was booked on the bank

roject was inspected in February 2009. From the photo the foundation for this project was


US$9,785.17 was paid:

Qualoh Community School Project in Gbanken, Webbo Chiefdom

The project was to be completed in three (3) months as of the date of signing the contract. The

April 2008. But contrary to this, the contractor, Nyemah II, is far from

The awarding of contracts to individuals without adequate background check could lead to


Superintendent Rosalind Sneh, Assistant Superintendent Johnson T. Wreh, PMC Chairman

PMC Assistant Treasurer Nyewoti Wollor

be made to restitute US$9,785.17, representing the

for which only the foundation of the Project was dug.

Amount$9,785.17




the PPC Act, 2005.


Management letter


Superintendent and County officials. No responses were provided.

Purchase of Road Equipment

305. The citizens of Grand Kru County decided to purchase an earth moving equipment, one dump

truck, one new double cabin pick-up, one new motor bike, fuel oil and lubricants. This was the

major project in the County with a cost of US$199,875.00.

306. The contract was awarded to Monrovia Developer Management Corporation (MDMC). I checked

with PPCC and it was confirmed that Grand Kru did not obtained a No Objection as the

Threshold Schedule of the PPC Act, 2005 indicates that an amount above US$100,000.00 for

goods should be internationally competitively bided. This was not done and therefore led to a

violation of the Threshold provisions of the PPC Act, 2005

307. Again, the contract was sole sourced. On 7 April 2008, the Grand Kru PMC and the Monrovia

Developer Management Corporation (MDMC) entered into a contractual Agreement for the

purchase of one dump truck, one new double cabin pick-up, one new motor bike, fuel oil and

lubricants at the cost of US$199, 875.00: The table below shows the cost breakdown in the

contract:

Table 22: Contract Cost Breakdown on the Purchase of Equipment

308. The contract indicated that MDMC was to procure the equipment and deliver same to the Grand

Kru County PMC at the Freeport of Monrovia no later than 90 days after issuance of the letter of

credit by the parties. MDMC was paid on 28 May 2008 and 9 June 2008.

Item Description Qty Unit Price Total Cost (USD)

1 Pre-owned Front End Loader 1 $46,290.00 $46,290.00

2 Pre-owned Motor Grader 1 $40,760.00 $40,760.00

4 Pre-owned Dump Truck 1 $49,575.00 $49,575.00

5 New Double Cabin Pick-Up 1 $28,500.00 $28,500.00

6 New Motor Bikes 1 $2,400.00 $2,400.00

7 Fuel Oil 3000 gals $4.00 $11,700.00

9 Lubricants L/S $3,650.00

10 Administration L/S $17,000.00

Total Contract Cost $199,875.00



309. The contract was signed by MDMC CEO and General Manager, John S. Youboty for MDMC. The

Superintendent, Development Superintendent, PMC Treasurer and Chairman of the Legislative

Caucus signed on behalf of Grand Kru County.

310. On 6 May 2008, in fulfillment of the contract, the PMC raised voucher #0997 and 0998 in the

name of MDMC EXPRESS Inc, 73 Carey Street, Monrovia, Liberia and issued Ecobank check

#787726 and #787727 in the amount of US$167,525.00 and US$32,350.00 respectively in favor

of MDMC to pre-finance the project in line with the agreement:

Table 23: Gross Payment on the Purchase of Road Equipment as per Voucher and Bank Statement

311. As indicated, the first check was booked on the Bank Statement on 5 May 2008 and the second

check was booked on 9 June 2008. The payment included US$32,350.00 for fuel oil, lubricants

and administration. This amount was not accounted for as the equipment is still in Monrovia.

Analysis of Grand Kru Equipment to be procured by MDMC

312. On 10 August 2008, MDMC General Manager John S. Youboty addressed a progress report on

the shipment of the equipment to the Grand Kru County PMC Chairman indicating that the

equipment will arrive at the Free Port of Monrovia from 25 September 2008 to 6 October 2008.

Exhibit 4.

313. The equipment arrived and was held at the Port by the National Port Authority for duty payment

for over three months. MDMC however sought and obtained duty waiver through MIA as per the

contract. The equipment was cleared at the NPA but General Manager Youboty did not make

available delivery note to confirm that the equipment have been delivered to the PMC in keeping

with the contract.

Project Status

314. The team also observed that besides the truck and the bike, the rest of the equipment are still at

the MDMC yard on 13th Street, Sinkor. The equipment below arrived on November 2008 and has

not been delivered, thus creating an opportunity loss for the Government of Liberia and a denial

of development for the citizen of Grand Kru:


6/9/2008 MDMC Express Inc 787726 $167,525.00

5/28/2008 MDMC Express Inc 787727 $32,350.00Total $199,875.00



Photo

Photo

Photo18:



Photo16: Road Equipment Purchased for Grand Kru County

Photo17: Caterpillar Purchased from Grand Kru CDF

Photo18: Dump Truck Purchased from Grand Kru CDF

Road Equipment Purchased for Grand Kru County

ru CDF

Dump Truck Purchased from Grand Kru CDF



315. No assessment report or engineer’s report was provided to ensure that the equipment was

delivered within standard and specifications. As of 11 August 2010, the equipment was still in

Monrovia, although it was brought into Liberia in November 2008.

Risk

316. The delay in completing projects on time could deny citizens development and multiply the loss

opportunity for the Government of Liberia.

317. The lack of adequate planning for projects under the CDF could undermine timely deliverables.

Recommendation

318. The Legislative Caucus and the County officials make all efforts to ensure that the equipment is

delivered to Grand Kru to be used for development purposes.

319. MDMC CEO and General Manager, John S. Youboty for MDMC should be made to restitute

US$32,350.00 paid for administration, fuel and lubricants for which no material justification and

supporting documents were provided to acquit the payment, as the equipment was still in

Monrovia and not in the use.

320. MDMC CEO and General Manager, John S. Youboty for MDMC should be made to pay general

damages for not delivering the equipment within the specified time frame as per the contract.

321. The Superintendent, Development Superintendent, PMC Treasurer and PMC Chairman signed on

behalf of Grand Kru. They should be sanctioned for negligent oversight of CDF projects, as they

failed to take immediate remedial actions to ensure that the equipment was delivered to Grand

Kru in a timely fashion.




323. Minister of Internal Affairs should ensure full compliance by County officials with the provisions

in the PPC Act, 2005 to ensure value for money and avoid situation that could encourage conflict

of interest in procurement.


Grand Kru Road Equipment: 324. GAC recommendation (281) calling on the County Authority and the Legislative Caucus to ensure

that the equipment is delivered to Grand Kru County for development purposes is quite in place.



325. Response: A new management contract between Grand Kru County and MDMC for the transfer,

operation and management of the equipment has been concluded. The contract runs from 15th

October 2010 to 14th December 2010. Exhibit 5.

Auditor General Position

326. The Superintendent has confirmed that the equipment is still in Monrovia since it was brought in

November 2008. The Superintendent maintained:

“A new management contract between Grand Kru County and MDMC for the transfer, operation

and management of the equipment has been concluded. The contract runs from 15th October

2010 to 14th December 2010.”

327. The equipment was fully paid for and was to be delivered in August 2008. Instead it was

delivered in November 2008. It has been in Monrovia since November 2008, depriving

development to the citizens of Grand Kru County. This was a clear waste of public resources, as

of date (nearly 2 years later) the equipment is still not in use.

328. Superintendent Sneh contends that the County has again entered another agreement with the

same company that purchase the equipment, allowing the company use of the equipment for

period running between 15 October 2010 and 14 December 2010. Gran Kru County has now

entered the leasing business, as a lessor of equipment purchased with CDF for the development

of the County.

329. Superintendent Sneh provided a response that is not substantive to cure the deficiency noted. I

therefore maintain all my recommendations, as she did not even bothered to address the issue

of the US$32,350.00 for fuel and lubricant etc for which no accounting was made.

Superintendent Sneh also did not provide material justification for the payment for fuel and

lubricant in advance when the equipment had not even arrived in Liberia. The payment for fuel

and lubricant cleared the bank on 5 May 2008, while the equipment arrived in Monrovia in

November 2008 and has not been put in operation as of date, October 2010.

PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh’s Response to Audit Observation Memorandum

330. The project management committee of Grand Kru County extends thanks and acknowledge of

copies of the audit report for the various community projects under the County Development

Funds for FY o6/07/08. In compliance thereto we present to you our response as follow:

331. The audit observation revealed that the projects under the CDF failed in Grand Kru County.

Contrary to what has been reported in the audit report, project in Grand Kru County are

ongoing. The delay of these projects to be implemented as scheduled are due to the bad road

condition across the county which sometimes for materials to arrive at project sites, This

situation is not only affecting the CDF projects, but UN and other UN and other NGOs projects in



the county. At present, the status of these projects has improved since the team visited the

project sites.

332. The report carries it that some contracts are PMT members or public which has been considered

as a conflict of interest. However, there is no provision of the PPCC Act of the FY

06/07/08 Budget Laws forbidding any PMT from becoming a contractor. Since indeed

it has been stressed in the audit report PMT members who are contractor has been asked to

resign from the PMT and election be held within 30 days beginning March 15, 2009.

333. Bad roads are major constraint in implementing projects in Grand Kru County; yet

commitment and seriousness are guiding principle in our drive to successfully implement projects

in the County.

334. The PPCC Act: It is clear which of the provision of the PPCC Act was breached according to the

audit report. The PPCC provide transactions under exception for SINGLE SOURCE (Chapter 3:

3.2b; 5:2c; 13.3).

335. All PMT members and the contractors are mandated to complete all projects within five (5)

calendar months beginning April 1, 2009.

336. That contract s are signed between the communities through their PMT’s and contractors but not

the PMC as being reported in the audit observation report.

337. The PMT’s were not aware of Mr. Nyandeh Sieh Jr. position at the Superintendent’s office at the

time he signed the contract. Therefore, Mr. Sieh has been ask to resign as PMT member from

the Kplio Community on or before 25th March 2009.

338. Recommendation:

• That the Auditing team provides information indicating the provision of PPCC Act which was

breached;

• That the Auditing team should understanding that the community projects are not failed but

delayed.

Auditor General’s Position

339. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh’s responses were not substantive. Instead he attempted to

blame the lack of performance on bad roads. Monies were paid in contravention with the

payment terms in the contract but these projects are not completed. These projects were to be

completed by latest December 2008 but during the physical verification it was noted they were

not completed by February 2009.



340. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh also did not provide any material evidence to indicate that UN

and other NGOs were also facing difficulties implementing projects because of bad roads. PMC

Chairman Johnson T. Wreh lives and work in Grand Kru. He is therefore quite knowledgeable of

the weather condition in Grand Kru County. The Project Management Committee and the County

authorities awarded the contracts in April and made payments in May and June 2008. PMC

Chairman Johnson T. Wreh could have waited until the dry season to award the contracts. By his

argument, he did not exercise due care as the contractors were paid in advance, again in

contravention of the payment terms.

341. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh failed to note that the doctrine of impossibility, impracticability,

and frustration of purpose excuse performance only if a supervening circumstance was not

reasonably contemplated or foreseeable when the contract was made. Unreasonably rain and


less Grand Kru. Bad road condition is an ordinary business risk in Grand Kru County.

342. It is welcomed that PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh has indicated that those members of the

PMT who have received contracts are being asked to resign. His position however that there is

no provision in the PPC, 2005 Act against conflict of interest is not supported. Section 131 (1c), 4

and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005 prohibit conflict of interest in procurement. Article 90 of the Liberian

Constitution also forbids conflict of interest.

343. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh further maintained, “All PMT members and the contractors are

mandated to complete all projects within five (5) calendar months beginning April 1, 2009.” The

funding was made available in 2008 and the contractors did not deliver. Two projects did not

even start. All the contracts awarded to Fayiah Henneh did not start, although monies were paid

in advance.

344. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh’s contention that he was not aware that Nyandeh Sieh, Jr was

an employee of the MIA at the time he obtained the contract is without merit. It was conflict of

interest and a contravention of Section 131 (1c), 4 and 5 of the PPC Act, 2005.

345. PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh’s mere explanations therefore cannot be sustained

administratively and judicially when challenged on the merits, because they are not supported by

documents, material justifications, and substantive authorities. I maintain all my

recommendations.

Assistant Superintendent for Development T. Michael Wisseh ‘s Response to Audit

Observation

346. The Audit conducted on Grand Kru Development Fund by the General Auditing Commission

Team headed by Mr. Philip M. Massaquoi provided an education as a guide of how PMC and

County Administration are to manage, disburse and account for taxpayers’ money. However,

there is a need to make some clarification on counts as indication in the report.



Count I: Failure to implement Projects

347. The CDF projects in Grand Kru County have actually failed to be implemented according to the

term and condition signed between the communities and the various contractors. However,

there are conditions in Grand Kru County that normally impede implementation in the County

that worse noting. The County is one of the most difficult counties in term of accessibility.

348. Most building materials are brought to the County sometimes by sea due to bad road condition

and when the sea gets rough; transportation by sea can also be difficult if not impossible. This is

no justification for the extreme delayed of these projects on the part of the contractors.

349. Moreover, the conditions of these projects have changed as compared to how there were when

the Auditors visited them. The problem of the CDF projects are general problem that other UN

sponsored projects in the County face. For example; the administration Building funded by

UNOPS/MIA/MPW started in March 2007 and was to complete and turn over to the County in

June 2007 but the Building was completed in 2008 and officially turn over to the County

February 2009. The projects were delayed by 16 months. Therefore we all should understand

the condition of doing project in the County. Besides the Administration Building, other projects

such as the Grand Kru women resource center, the police station, etc suffered similar

impediments due to bad roads and other associated problems

Count II: Failure to Adhere to Payment Schedule

350. The decision taken to pay various contractors as indicated in the audit report contravened the

term and condition of the contracts. We agreed with that. However, the contractors were paid

the total projects materials cost to purchase their materials at once instead of going to Monrovia

at some point in time which have the propensity of consuming nearly half of the total projects

cost due to huge transportation paying of bringing building materials to the County.

351. The contract did not reflect the realities of the County which lead to the contravention. We

promised to draw out future contracts base on realities of grand Kru County.

352. Meanwhile, the report pointed out that the PPCC Act was breached without indicating the

provision for the act that was breached to serve as guidance for future financial transactions.

Count III: Conflict of Interest

353. The project management Committee (PMC) has been informed to make show that all those who

are serving on the project management teams of the various communities and recommended by

the them as contractors should made to resign on or before March 2009 and a new election be

held to replace those affected PMT members without delay.

354. Additionally, Mr. Nyanded Sieh who is serving as employee of the Ministry of internal Affairs and

at the same contractor for GAA/BMZ was asked to resign as contractor for GAA/BMZ or

employee of MIA on or before march 15, 2009 and return to the Klipo Road Project on or before



March 20, 2009. The PMT of the Klipo Traditional Community and the Klipo people should take

the initiative to make sure that the contractor implement the project or refund the money. The

PMC and county Administration will support this action when taken.

Recommendation

• That the PMC member make sure that all those PMC member who recommended by their

various traditional Communities to serve as contractors be made to resign and new election be

held to replace them.

• That the PMC mount pressure on the PMT and the various communities to make sure that

contractors implement the projects for which they received money within the period of three

months beginning April 2009.

Assistant Superintendent for Development Wisseh’s Response to the Draft Management

Letter

355. Clarification: Failure to implement Projects: The strategy of encouraging and facilitating citizen’s

participation in community development is new; but after nearly four years of practice, it is

beginning to create a sense of responsibility and accountability at the community, district and

county levels.

356. As far as implementation of community projects in Grand Kru County is concerned, we admit

that there have been serious delays, but certainly, there is no evidence of attempt to abuse and/

or misapply the County Development Fund (CDF). Grand Kru is making every effort to comply

with the governing the use of its CDF.

357. Our response to the GAC draft audit report should be viewed in the context of the following

checklist:

• Were the CDF funds allocated to the communities by the special County Council as required

by the Budget Act: Yes;

• Did the citizens in the target area meet to decide what they wanted to do with their

development funds, and did they appoint their PMT as required by the law: Yes;

• Did the various PMTs find, and sign, contracts with contractors they honestly believe could

do the works? Yes.

• Have the projects been started: Yes (except for one out of 16)

358. Contract were endorsed/ attested/ approved by the PMC and the county authorities against the

background of three major assumptions:



• That PMT members at the community level understood what is implied in contractual

arrangements;

• That those who presenting themselves at the town level as contractors had the competency

and expertise to execute the works; and

• That the usual practice of moving objects and supplies on the head and by foot into

communities in Grand Kru could suffice for major development initiatives.

359. All these assumptions proved to be wrong. Had the PMC and the county authorities not assumed

as indicated above, the situation with implementation of the project in Grand Kru would have

been different. For us, it is a case of lessons-learnt.

360. Payment not consistent with payment terms of the contracts: This problem affects only those

projects that were the value of US$10,000.00 Payments for all other projects were made in

compliance with the contract terms. For projects value at US$10,000.00, all the contractors

complained verbally that three payment terms (35%; 35% and 30%) at different stages of

implementation made it difficult for them to procure and transport materials to various project

sites. In response to the reality and with the hope of expediting implementation, the PMC and

the county authorities, paid the contractor amounts beyond the stipulated payment schedule of

the contracts. Technically, this amounted to that effect in all the cases.

361. That the PMC and the County Authority did not document the change in payment term of the

contracts is the problem that the GAC is holding onto. This was an oversight; it is now a case of

lesson-learnt; it will not be repeated.

362. Breach of PPCC Act: GAC observation that the PPCC Act was breached is not precise. To the best

of our knowledge, all PPCC requirements were followed, except for payment outside the terms of

the US$10,000.00 contracts as discussed above.

363. Conflict of Interest. Mr. Nyanneded Sieh who is serving as employee of the Ministry of Internal

Affairs at the same time contractor for GAA/BMZ has resigned as County Construction Engineer,

he is no longer in the employ of the Ministry. Mr .Dennis Wiah who is the contractor for the Blloh

PMT has resigned from the PMT.

364. Clarification: Restitution of funds: Except for the case of the Buah Community in which the

contractor (D. Y. Nhe) absconded with the amount of US$9,436.09, no other amount from the

CDF of Grand Kru County has been misapplied or stolen. Representative, Slopadoe has

intervened in this matter – the PMC and the County authority are not liable. In general, the PMC

and the county authority have fully accounted for the CDF. Through it oversight, the PMC has

confirmed that materials have been purchased, projects have been started and at different

stages of progress.



365. In almost all cases, the size of projects initiated by the various communities requires released of

the additional funds that have been approved by the Council, but are on hold.

Auditor General’s Position 366. Assistant Superintendent T. Michael Wisseh admitted that “the CDF projects in Grand Kru County

have actually failed to be implemented according to the term and condition signed between the

communities and the various contractors.” But then he defended these contractors on the same

basis that the road condition was bad when in fact some of the contractors did not start.

367. As indicated in the evaluation of the responses from PMC Chairman Johnson T. Wreh, Assistant

Superintendent Wisseh lives and works in Grand Kru County. He is keenly aware of the road

condition but contracts were awarded and monies paid in advance in April-June 2008 time

frame.

368. Assistant Superintendent T. Michael Wisseh contended, “most building materials are brought to

the County sometimes by sea due to bad road condition and when the sea gets rough,

transportation by sea can also be difficult if not impossible. This is no justification for the

extreme delayed of these projects on the part of the contractors.” This is paradoxical as

Assistant Superintendent Wisseh attempted to provide mere justifications but then pretended not

be providing justifications. The failure to deliver on time when monies were paid in advance is a

material breach. These material breaches denied timely development in the counties and created

a loss opportunity for the Government of Liberia.

369. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh further indicated, “For example; the administration Building

UNOPS/MIA/MPW started in March 2007 and was to complete and turn over to the County in

June 2007 but the Building was completed in 2008 and officially turn over to the County

February 2009. The projects were delayed by 16 months.” Assistant Superintendent Wisseh did

not provide any documentation to indicate that it took 16 months to finish the building by

UNOPS/MIA/MPW. He also did not provide document to indicate time frame for completion, as

that information will assist in evaluating the purported 16 months delayed. Furthermore, a delay

on a joint project is not sufficient material justification for delay on all contracts awarded and for

which full payment were made in advance.

370. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh contended that, “the decision taken to pay various contractors

as indicated in the audit report contravened the term and condition of the contracts. We agreed

with that. However, the contractors were paid the total projects materials cost to purchase their

materials at once instead of going to Monrovia at some point in time which have the propensity

of consuming nearly half of the total projects cost due to huge transportation paying of bringing

building materials to the County.” This is not a material justification as all the contractors were

paid in advance of performance, as he had admitted. His explanation that the payments were

made to enable contractors to purchase all the materials in Monrovia at once is not supported,



as some of the contractors did not even start the projects. There were also no material

modifications to the contract for the advance payments.

371. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh failed to note that the doctrine of impossibility, impracticability,

and frustration of purpose excuse performance only if a supervening circumstance was not

reasonably contemplated or foreseeable when the contract was made. Unreasonable rain and


less Grand Kru. Bad road condition is an ordinary business risk in Grand Kru. Bad road condition

is no news in Liberia, much less a county that is deemed as the “forgotten” County due to its

bad road and poor infrastructure. Additionally, the purchase of materials in Monrovia is noted

business practice in Liberia and therefore cannot be used as excuse to contravene provisions of

contracts and agreements.

372. I have provided the provisions in the PPC Act, 2005 that were breached. Section 131 (1C), 4 and

5 prohibits conflict of interest. The threshold Schedule required competitive bid for goods

procure above US$100,000.000. Section 32 (1) stipulated nine (9) requirements, which include

ensuring that all contractors demonstrate legal capacity and financial condition to deliver on

contractual terms.

373. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh indicated further that, “additionally, Mr. Nyandeh Sieh who is

serving as employee of the Ministry of internal Affairs and at the same contractor for GAA/BMZ

was asked to resign as contractor for GAA/BMZ or employee of MIA on or before march 15, 2009

and return to the Klipo Road Project on or before March 20, 2009.” This is not a material

justification to cure the deficiency noted as regard the noted conflict of interest. As of the date,

the issue of the conflict of interest was a material deficiency and a reportable issue.

374. In the response to the draft management letter, Assistant Superintendent Wisseh did not adduce

any new substantive information beyond what he provided in the response to the audit

observation memorandum. He accepted the material deficiencies in the following responses:

“All these assumptions proved to be wrong. Had the PMC and the county authorities not

assumed as indicated above, the situation with implementation of the project in Grand Kru would

have been different. For us, it is case of lessons-learnt.”

“That the PMC and the County Authority did not document the change in payment term of the

contracts is the problem that the GAC is holding onto. This was an oversight; it is now a case of

lesson-learnt; it will not be repeated.”

“Breach of PPCC Act: GAC observation that the PPCC Act was breached is not precise. To the

best of our knowledge, all PPCC requirements were followed, except for payment outside the

terms of the US$10,000.00 contracts as discussed above.”



375. Merely indicating that “to the best of our knowledge” PPCC requirements were followed is not

material evidence. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh did not submit bill documents or a No

Objection from PPCC for the purchase of the equipment. Section 32 of the PPC Act, 2005 also

required that all companies that are contracted are legally registered companies in Liberia. This

was not the case in Grand Kru, as NAFADP is not a registered company in Liberia. Section 131 of

the PPC Act, 2005 also prohibits conflict of interest. Superintendent Sneh and Assistant

Superintendent Wisseh have admitted that indeed there was evidence of conflict of interests on

the part of County Officials and members of the PTM securing contracts on the CDF.

376. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh provided the following material false information:

“Clarification: Restitution of funds: Except for the case of the Buah Community in which the

contractor (D. Y. Nhe) absconded with the amount of US$9,436.09, no other amount from the

CDF of Grand Kru County has been misapplied or stolen. Representative, Slopadoe has

intervened in this matter – the PMC and the County authority are not liable. In general, the PMC

and the county authority have fully accounted for the CDF. Through it oversight, the PMC has

confirmed that materials have been purchased, projects have been started and at different

stages of progress.”

377. It is indicated in the report that Representative Gbenimah B. Slopadoe has paid US$5,000.00 of

the US$9,436.09. Development Superintendent T. Micheal Wisseh issued a receipt to

Representative Slopadoe, dated 19 February 2009.

378. It is further instructive to note that the Assistant Superintendent did not provide any

documentation to support his contention that besides the Buah Community, “the CDF of Gran

Kru County has been misapplied or stolen.” Assistant Superintendent did not provide proof of

recovery of monies given Fayiah Hinneh for which no work was performed, nor did he provide

evidence and material justification for funds paid to MMDC in the tune of US$32,350.00 for fuel

and lubricant when the equipment had not even arrived. Besides the Generator House, not a

single project in Grand Kru succeeded but funds were paid.

379. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh mere explanations therefore cannot be sustained

administratively and judicially when challenged on the merits, because they are not supported by

documents, material justifications, and substantive authorities. I maintain all my

recommendations.

Grand Kru County Sports Fund Unaccounted For

Observation

380. The Government of Liberia in its 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 National Budgets allocated

US$3,333.00 and US$13,333.00 respectively for National Football Development to every county



for sports. The two allotments were appropriated in the budget of the Ministry of Youth and

Sports (MY&S) for Sports Development in Grand Kru County.

381. A review of MY&S report revealed that the disbursement for 2006/2007 was signed for by Grand

Kru Sports Commission on check 103342#. The 2007/2008 appropriation in the amount of

US$8,321.00 was also disbursed on check # 225954.Exhibit 5.

Table24: Grand Kru County Sports Allotment and Disbursement for 2006/2007 &

2007/2008

382. I also observed that the Grand Kru County Sports Commission was appointed by the County

Authority to liaise with the MY&S to sign for funds made available for county sports. I further

extended my examination to the Ministry of Youths and Sports where it was confirmed that for

2006/2007, the amount of US$1,800.00 was disbursed on check #225954 to the Grand Kru

County Sports Commission, headed by Senator Cletus Wotorson.

383. The disbursement for 2007/2008 was again made to the Grand Kru Sport Commission in the

amount of US$8,321.00 on check #103342 and received by Grand Kru Sports Commission.

384. All efforts to get expenditure reports from the Grand Kru County Administration for funds

disbursed to them by MY&S for the county proved futile.

Risk

385. Undocumented and unsubstantiated financial transactions could expose public resources to

fraud, waste and abuse.

386. Undocumented and unsubstantiated transactions could also undermine public sector

accountability, transparency and probity in the management of public resources.

Recommendation

387. The Minister of Youth and Sports consult with the County Authority to appoint a Sport

Coordinator for the County.

388. The Minister of Internal Affairs should put in place a system that would discourage county

authorities from serving in dual or multiple capacities in Grand Kru County, especially as it relates

to financial management for effective check and balances.

Period Appropriation for Grand Kru

County Share of MY&S Funding

Disbursement

by MY&S to

Grand Kru

Budget variance

2006/2007 $3,333.00 $1,800.00 $1,533.00

2007/2008 $13,333.00 $8,321.00 $5,012.00

Total $16,666.00 $10,121.00 $6,545.00




Management Letter

389. An audit observation was submitted followed by Draft management Letter but as of 28 October

2010, no responses were provided.

Missing County Generator

Observation

390. Grand Kru County was among five counties (Grand Kru, Lofa, River Gee, Grand Bassa and Grand

Cape Mount Counties) in Liberia that benefited from a 60KVA generator donated by Eugene H.

Shannon on behalf of the President of the Republic of Liberia, Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, after

the general and presidential elections in Liberia.

391. During my asset verification in Grand Kru, the generator could not be located or traced. I

contacted the County Superintendent Rosalind Sneh. She referred me to the Grand Kru County

Caucus. I contacted Senate Pro-temp Cletus Wotorson in the presence of Senator Blamo Nelson,

Rep. Slopadoe and others. He indicated that the generator was traded in for three smaller ones.

The three smaller ones were destined for Barclayville, Grand Cess and Buah.

392. In Barclayville, a 12KVA KDE-14 Star KIPOR generator was seen at the County Superintendent’s

residence. This generator is currently used to light the Superintendent’s residence.

393. I also visited Grand Cess and Buah Statutory District to locate the other generators but to no

avail. Representative Slopadoe, when contacted, confirmed having the generator intended for

Buah but indicated that it was in Karloken, River Gee County. He did not provide material

justification why a generator given to Grand Kru was in another county, River Gee.

394. Upon the team returned to Monrovia, a follow up was made at the Ministry of Lands and Mines

with Minister Eugene Shannon who donated them. Minister Shannon confirmed that the

generators were given to him by a personal friend and he turned them over to the President of

Liberia for distribution.

395. Minister Shannon further indicated that Senator Wotorson and others approached him to have

the generator split into three smaller ones but he told them that he did not want to be part of

that decision. He therefore referred them to the store to do their own negotiation.

Risk

396. The generators could have been traded for a lower quality, thus increasing maintenance cost.

397. Missing two generators could have been diverted for personal use instead of the purpose for

which they were donated and distributed.



Recommendation

398. Representative Slopadoe should be made to produce the generator he indicated was in River

Gee County for audit inspection. This generator should be verified by the Superintendent when it

is recovered and evidence submitted to the GAC for audit.

399. Chairman of the Legislative Caucus Senator Wotorson should make all reasonable efforts to

ensure that the individual that received the other generator make full accounting for it, with the

necessary legal means employ to ensure to ensure full restitution. This generator should be

verified by the Superintendent when it is recovered and evidence submitted to the GAC for audit.

Superintendent Rosalind Sneh’s Response to Draft Management Letter

Missing County Generator:

400. GAC recommends that I Rosalind Sneh should be made to restitute the County generator

diverted to my residence.

401. Response: The Audit Team headed by Mr. Philip M. Massaquoi physically examined the 12 KVA

generator, which supplied current to the Superintendent residence. But what they failed to

mention is that the 12 KVA generator also provided street lighting in the City of Barclayville. In

fact, the generator was transported to the County at my own expense and not government

funds. It sounds so devilish to say that government owned generator should only supply the

residence of the City, while the County Superintendent lives in darkness. For evidence, you can

interview the residence of Barclayville City. Therefore, the Superintendent, Rosalind Sneh did not

divert government property to private use, but rather to my official residence in Barclayville City.

Auditor General’s Position 402. I have accepted Superintendent Sneh’s contention and have appropriately modified the

recommendation not make her to restitute the full value of the generator being used at her

residence. My initial recommendation was predicated on the fact that the generator is being

used at her personal residence, not an officially provided housing for the Superintendent.

403. I maintain my recommendation that the other two generators are recovered and use for the

benefit of the county.

County Sources of Income

Cellcom Contract

Observation

404. On 17 March 2008, the citizens of Barclayville, Grand Kru County represented by Superintendent

Rosalind Sneh and Cellcom Telecommunications, Inc., represented by its Chief executive officer,

Avner Nachmani entered into a fifteen (15) years lease agreement (1st April 2008-28th February

2023) for the construction of one Cellcom Towel in Barclayville at an annual rent of US$300.00.



405. The agreement was only signed by the two party representatives, Rosalind Sneh and Avener

Nachmani without being witnessed by any other person from either side. Moreover, I also

observed that Superintendent Sneh as per the agreement received US$900.00 representing

advance payment for three years but failed to deposit the fund into the county’s account.

406. Superintendent Sneh presented cash receipt No. 6006 in the amount of US$900.00 for six (6)

bundles of #10 wire purchased to wire some parts of Barclayville. The receipt presented does

not bear the name of any business entity for external confirmation.

407. Besides, the receipt is dubiously written. The payment is done by the Grand Kru County

Superintendent in the amount of US$900.00 as payment for wires and the Superintendent again

signed as receiver. This is equivalent to being payer and the vendor at the same time.

Risk

408. The signing of the contract between two persons without a witness, and the failure of the

Superintendent to deposit the amount received into the Grand Kru County Account, puts the

cash at a risk of misappropriation.

409. Undocumented transactions could lead to fraud, waste and abuse of public resources.

Recommendation

410. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh is made to restitute the full amount of US$900.00 received from

the venture.

411. All funds received by county officials should be duly deposited and expended with complete

documentation.

412. The Minister of Internal Affairs should document and report on the total revenue available to

county officials so as to more truly determine the actual financial position of each county,

including Grand Kru County.


CELLCOM Contract:

413. GAC requests that I Rosalind Sneh be made to restitute US$900.00 received from the CELLCOM

Contract.

414. Response: The US$900.00 representing rent for 3 years by CELLCOM was not deposited in

Grand Kru Development Account because the property (parcel of land) occupied by CELLCOM is

for the people of Barclayville, whom I represent in the contract. The funds were expended to

purchase wires to electrify the City of Barclayville as mentioned supra. This was done in

consultation with the City Mayor and his Council and in the interest of the citizens to see and



enjoy electricity for the very first time in their existence as a community. Exhibit 5: Receipt with

GAC.

415. GAC claims the receipt was dubiously written. The vendor signed the receipt for receiving the

cash for 6 bundles of wires and the Superintendent signed the receipt for receiving the item

because the vendor did not have “pay In Full and Delivered” stamp. GAC cannot prove that there

is no vendor signature on that receipt. What is dubious about the receipt?

Auditor General’s Position 416. The Superintendent’s contention that “the US$900.00 representing rent for 3 years by CELLCOM

was not deposited in Grand Kru Development Account because the property (parcel of land)

occupied by CELLCOM is for the people of Barclayville, whom I represent in the contract “ is not

a material justification for not depositing the proceeds into the bank account. Representing

citizens and depositing funds into an authorized bank account and expending it therefore

are not mutually exclusive initiative.

417. Superintendent Sneh did not provide any receipt showing that a six bundle of wire was

purchase. In the absence of documentary evidence, the noted deficiency cannot be

cured. I therefore maintain all my recommendations.

Bank Statement Analysis — First Account

418. I independently obtained two Bank Statements for Grand Kru County CDF. The initial Bank

Statement provided was account #102101850222016. I noted on this Bank Statement that the

US$366,666.67 for period 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 was deposited. In the other Bank Account,

Account # 10210136022019, I also noted the following deposits of which the amount of

US$100,000.00 was deposited for fiscal period 2009/2010, as detailed:

Table 25: Total Credit transaction

419. It is indicated in the table above that the US$100,000.00 was deposited on 6 July 2010. No

material justification was provided by Superintendent Rosalind Sneh and Assistant

Superintendent T. Michael Wisseh for depositing this CDF into this account when all other CDF

monies were deposited into a different account. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh and Assistant

Superintendent T. Michael Wisseh are the two signatories to this account. Exhibit 6.

Total Credit Transactions

Book Date Type of Credit Check # Amount

10/16/2006 Cash Deposit $500.00

11/20/2006 Deposit 46155 $16,000.00

9/5/2007 Deposit 46192 $670.00

7/6/2010 CDF 125468 $100,000.00

Total $117,170.00



420. An amount of US$17,170.00 was also deposited into this Account. As noted in my Forensic Audit

Report of 2005/2006, a total of US$16,670 was deposited into the Grand Kru County

Development Fund Account Number 10210136022019, held at the Ecobank for labor and

administrative cost. The Superintendent has also informed me that the US$500.00 was her

personal money deposited into this account.

421. As noted in the 2005/2006 Forensic Account Report, Expenditure receipts submitted by the

Superintendent of Grand Kru County (justifying the US$16,670.00 deposited into the Grand Kru

County Development Account for labor and administrative cost) totaled US$10,142.50, leaving a

balance of US$6,527.50 unaccounted for by the Superintendent and the Assistant

Superintendent for Development.

422. Reexamination of the Bank Statement revealed that US$16,260.00 was withdrawn from this

account in the name of the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Development. As

stated, the Superintendent provided receipts of expenditure in the tune of US$10,142.50, leaving

a variance of US$6,118.00 unaccounted for by the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent

for Development. The indicated withdrawals made by the Superintendent and Assistant

Superintendent for Development are detailed in the table below:

Table26: Withdrawals Made By Superintendent Sneh & Asst. Superintendent for Development Wisseh

423. I further noted the charges to Ecobank in the tune of US$1,354.47. This amount reflected below

minimum charges, debit interest charges and end of month charges.

424. The net balance in the account as of 6 July 2010 was US$99,555.53.

Risk

425. Multiple CDF accounts could be used as means to launder monies as well as siphon funds from

the Government of Liberia.

426. Undocumented and unsubstantiated withdrawals could indicate that fraud has occurred and

county officials could use multiple CDF accounts to conceal the fraudulent payments.



427. Payment made to serving county officials who are already on Government payroll could

undermine the Financial Rules and create condition for misappropriation of development funds.

428. Non-adherence to the regulation set by the CDSS could make accounting for and transparent

use of the public resources difficult, as discretionary decision making could lead to fraud, waste

and abuse.

Recommendation

429. Superintendent Rosalind Sneh and Assistant Superintendent for Development T. Michael Wisseh

should be made to jointly and severally restitute US$6,118.00 representing amount paid in their

name for which no substantive authority, material justification and supporting documents were

provided during the course of the audit.

430. Account #10210136022019 is immediately closed down and the balance of US$99,555.53 is

transferred to the CDF main account at the Ecobank bank, account number 10210118522016.

Bank Statement Analysis—Second Account

431. I obtained the second account in August 2010, CDF account number 10210185022016. The total

amount deposited into the account for the period under review was US$369, 666.67, as depicted

below:

Table27: Total Credit Transaction

432. As indicated in the table above, US$366,666.67 was from the CDF and US$3,00.00. The source

of the US$3,000.00 was not disclosed.

433. The total withdrawals and direct debits were US$363,492.99. I noted US$100.00 for direct

charges. I further noted that US$19,720.40 was withdrawals. Of this amount, US$18,640.00

without material justifications, substantive authorities and supporting documentation:

Total Credit Transactions

Book Date Type of Credit Check # Amount

2/20/2008 CDF 255218 $100,000.00

5/23/2008 CDF 313570 $100,000.00

6/5/2008 CDF 46200 $166,666.67

11/11/2008 Deposit 428935 $3,000.00

Total $369,666.67



Table28: Withdrawals without Substantive Authority & Supporting Justification

434. The table below showed amounts paid to various universities:

Table29: Grand Kru County Payment to Universities

435. As indicated in the preceding table, four (4) universities were paid in the tune of US$3,400.00. It

was further indicated that the payment of US$500.00 was a repayment to Superintendent Sneh

for her initial deposit to open the old CDF account.

Risk

436. Multiple CDF accounts could be used as means to launder monies as well as siphon funds from

the Government of Liberia.

437. Undocumented and unsubstantiated withdrawals could indicate that fraud has occurred and

county officials could use the CDF to conceal the fraudulent payments.

438. Payment made to serving county officials who are already on Government payroll could

undermine the Financial Rules and create condition for misapplication of development funds.

439. Non-adherence to the regulation set by the CDSS could make accounting for and transparent

use of the public resources difficult, as discretionary decision making could lead to fraud, waste

and abuse.

3/27/2008 M & Y Enterprise 787703 $580.40

3/26/2008 Michael K.W. Tawreh 787704 $7,540.00





$18,640.00

12/5/2008 Rosalind Sneh 787736 $500.00

$19,720.40


9/4/2008 A.M.E University Sudsidy 787732 $800.00

9/8/2008 African Methodist University 787733 $800.00

9/5/2008 UL Forex Subsidy 787730 $1,000.00

9/8/2008 United Methodist University 787731 $800.00

$3,400.00



Recommendations

440. PMC Treasurer Michael K.W. Tarwreh and Assistant Superintendent for Development J. Michael

Wisseh should be made to restitute US$18, 640.00 representing amount paid in his name for

which no substantive authority, material justification and supporting documents were provided

during the course of the audits to acquit the payments.

441. Assistant Superintendent Wisseh should be held accountable and punish for submitting fake

receipts to conceal a material misappropriation of checks written in the name of PMC Treasurer

Michael K.W. Tawreh. His action is a contravention of Section 12.31 of the Penal Law and

Regulation N-3 of the PFM Act, 2009.


First Account:

442. That Superintendent Rosalind Sneh be made to restitute US$14,600.00 representing payments

for which no authority, justification and supporting documents were provided.

443. Response: The first Grand Kru County Development Funds Account (102101360-22019) was

opened when the GOL provided US$66,000.00 to each county under the 100-Community

Development Project of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Of the US$66,000.00, the MIA

purchased all the road rehabilitation tools, a vehicle (pick-up), a motorbike, power-saw,

fuel/gasoline and lubricants for the project. Grand Kru County under my administration identified

the reopening of the Barclayville-Sasstown Road, which was closed for over 17 years. The MIA

reserved US$ 16,000.00 for workmanship or labor cost, which was deposited in this account on

November 20, 2006. The Superintendent and the Development were the only signatories. Earlier

I Rosalind Sneh as Superintendent was in charged with the responsibility to open the account. I

did so with US$500.00 of my own money on October 16, 2006 as initial deposit. This amount

was refunded to me from the US$16,000.00 leaving a “Balance Brought Forward” of

US$15,500.00 to be used for labor cost the project.

444. The MIA through CDSS assigned a Project Coordinator called Emmanuel Kollie, who was

responsible to pay workers on the field. The workers included Power-saw operators, side-

brushing and log bridges construction. The project was completed on March 17, 2007 when a

fleet of vehicles headed by project pick-up and followed UNMIL vehicles entered Sasstown to the

jubilation of the people of the district.



Supported Withdrawals from the Account (Exhibit (6)

445. Since the passage of the 2007/2008 Budget Act commencing July 2007, a new account has been

opened (10-2101850-22-016) where all CDF monies are now being deposited.

446. Moreover, the GAC audit period does not include the 100-Community Project 2006 and therefore

should not have been mentioned in this Management Letter.

Assistant Superintendent for Development Wisseh’s Response to the Draft Management

Letter

447. Clarification for Eco Bank Account #101-101-360-220-19: Sometime in mid 2007, County

Superintendent Rosalind Tonneh Sneh and County Development Superintendent T. Michael

Wisseh opened this account in the name of “Grand Kru County Development Fund”. According to

Development Superintendent, Wisseh, Superintendent Sneh told him that the amount of

US$500.00, which was used to open the account, was her personal money and she has since

been reimbursed.

448. Shortly after the passage of the FY/06-07 budget and prior to establishment of the Project

Management Committee (PMC), Government appropriated US$66,000.00 as Grand Kru allotment

for the 100-Community Driven Project Program. Of this amount, only US$16,670.00 was

received in two checks issued by the Ministry of Finance in the name of the County:

(US$16,000.00 and US$670.00). Both checks were deposited in the account, which already had

a beginning balance of US$500.00 to make a total available balance of US$17,170.00. All funds

in this account, less the US$500.00 from the Superintendent Sneh, were intended to be used on

activities relating to the 100-C.

449. The FY/07-08 Budget Act provided for the establishment of the PMC and the opening of a new

account titled: “Grand County Development Fund Account”. The new account was opened at the

EcoBank with the number 102-101-850-220-16. With the opening of the account, all CDF from

FY/06-07-10 are deposited to this new account, instead of the Community Driven Project

Account of 101-101-360-220-19.

Date Payee Purpose Check# Amount (US$

01/23/2007 Rosalind Sneh Labor Cost 00507451 5,333.00



Total Withdrawal 14,633.00

Bank Balance 867.00



450. We were taken by surprise when we read in the draft report that on June 6, 2010, PMC

Treasurer, Mr. Michael K. W. Tarwreh, made a deposit of US$100,000.00 related to FY/09-10

into the old account. A further examination of our records prompted by the draft audit report

revealed that, on July 30, 2010 County Superintendent Rosalind Sneh also deposited a check in

the same old account for US$50,000.00 issued by the Ministry of Finance to the county

representing Grand Kru share of some SDF in the FY/09-10 budget.

451. We realize that both deposits were made in the old account by error due to the close similarity of

the account titles. We have since written the bank (copy attached) requesting transfer of all

deposits in the old account to the current CDF Account Titled: Grand Kru County Development

Fund Account#102-101-850-220-16.

452. We submit that the error was not intended. As you will notice, no withdrawal was ever

attempted or carried from the account since its dormancy. This is a clear indication that the

County Administration has no dealing any more with the Account Title: Grand Kru County

Development Fund bearing account #10-2101-36022019.

453. Clarification: US$3,000.00 Deposited into 102-101-850-220-16: the Ministry of Internal Affairs

provided this amount by check for the holding of the special County Council. It was deposited,

withdrawn in the name of County Superintended Rosalind Sneh, and used to pay for expenses

relating the convening of the said Council.

454. Clarification: US$500.00: PMC records do not show any payment of this amount to either PMC

Chairman Johnson T. Wreh or to Assistant Superintendent T. Michael Wisseh or to anybody.

455. Clarification: Money paid to Universities: In June 2009, the PMC did submit to the GAC the list of

beneficiaries and receipts of money paid to Universities. All the documents presented at the time

was examined and stamped by the Auditor. Copies are here with attached.

Community projects

456. Clarification on US$1, 627.00 issued in the name of T. Michael Wisseh: This amount was

intended to buy spare parts and pay for the repair of motor bike assigned to him (DS Wisseh) at

the time; and for two county power saws, which were being used to assist some of the

communities with their bridge repairs and roadside brushing work. One Kamara Aseku

repaired the motor bike from Plebo; the two power saws were repaired by Jerry Roberts from

Harper (see receipt attached).

Auditor General’s Position 457. The Superintendent in her closing stated that “the GAC Audit does not include 100-Community

Project 2006 and therefore should not have been mentioned in this Management Letter”. Her

contention cannot be supported by law or auditing standards. I am empowered to report on all

matters that come to my attention during the course of the audit. Subsequent discovery of a

material fact is one such instance. Accepting her contention would indicate that an auditor will



not report an observed fraudulent transaction, although not in the period under audit. It would

have been therefore appropriate for Superintendent Sneh to concentrate on addressing the

undocumented transactions, by providing documentation and material justifications to acquit the

payments made in her name.

458. The Superintendent in her response provides an expenditure report of how she used the

US$14,633.00 noted in the audit report as payments made in her name. She stated that

US$14,633.00 was spent on labor cost without material justifications and supporting

documentation to acquit the expenditure. As noted in the Forensic Audit Report of 2005/2006,

out of the US$66,666.67 allocated to Grand Kru County, US$16,670.00 was deposited in the

Grand Kru County Development Fund Account bearing account number 10210136022019, held

at the Ecobank for labor and administrative costs.

459. Out of the amount of US$16,670.00 deposited in the CDF Account, the Superintendent and

Assistant Superintendent for Development withdrew US$16,260.00. As stated in the 2005/2006

Forensic Audit Report, the Superintendent provided receipts of expenditure in the tune of

US$10,142.50, leaving a variance of US$6,118.00 unaccounted for by the Superintendent and

Assistant Superintendent for Development. The Superintendent failed to provide receipt of

US$6.118.00 she and her development Superintendent withdrew from the Bank.

460. Superintendent Sneh’s contended, “the project was completed on March 17, 2007 when a fleet

of vehicles headed by project pick-up and followed UNMIL vehicles entered Sasstown to the

jubilation of the people of the district.” The “jubilation of the people” is not documentary

evidence of how the CDF was expended.

461. I took note of Assistant Superintendent Wisseh information that the US$100,000.00 was made

deposit in error in the old CDF account and that the appropriate steps have been taken to

transfer the funds into the actual CDF account. On the issue of accounting for funds paid in his

name, Assistant Superintendent Wisseh provided this unsupported explanation:

“Clarification on US$1, 627.00 issued in the name of T. Michael Wisseh: This amount was

intended to buy spare parts and pay for the repair of motor bike assigned to him (DS Wisseh) at

the time; and for two county power saws, which were being used to assist some of the

communities with their bridge repairs and roadside brushing work. One Kamara Aseku

repaired the motor bike from Plebo; the two power saws were repaired by Jerry Roberts from

Harper (see receipt attached).”

462. By his own admission, Assistant Superintendent Wisseh is not sure as to who repair the motor

bike; as he indicated “one Kamara Aseku” repair the bike. The receipt issued also indicated no

name of business or contact information for me to independently verify the authenticity of his

assertions.



463. The payment voucher submitted for the students at the various indicated US$1,300.00 for 13

students, with 7 at TNIMA and 6 students at Stella Maris Polytechnic. But the attached listing

indicated 16 students purportedly received monies for TNIMA. There is no listing for Stella Maris

Polytechnic. This US$1,300.00 receipt was meant to acquit part of the undocumented payments

in the tune of US$18,640.00 paid in the name of PMC Treasurer Michael K.W. Tawreh. It is also

indicated on the Listing that U$450.00 was provided to 16 students, US$100.00 for union and

travel fees and US$150.00 for expediter and facilitator fees. This gave a combined total of

US$700.00 as reflected on the payment voucher. But interestingly, the purported receipt number

45599 issued by JFK Medical Center and stamped by TNMIA Business Manager’s office indicated

US$700.00. This means that TNMIA also received payment for union and travel fees, and

expediter and facilitator fees. The inconsistent on the unapproved Student Listing and payment

voucher denied assurance on the reliability of the document submitted.

464. I further examined the receipts submitted by Stella Maris Polytechnic. It was signed Jefferson T.

Nagbe on 09/04/08. Independent confirmation to Stella Maris indicated that a Jefferson T.

Nabge is not in the employed of Stella Maris. This clearly showed that Assistant Superintendent

Wisseh manufactured the receipts and submitted them for audit. This is a contravention of

Section 12.31 of the Penal Code, which forbids the altering, forging and submission of

documents that is known to be lacking authenticity. Regulation N-3 of the PFM Regulation also

prohibits the submission of false documents to acquit expenditure in Government.

465. In the absence of documentary evidence, the US$6,118.00 cannot stand as a charge to the

consolidated account. I have modified my recommendation. Instead of holding the

Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for US$16,260.00, I now recommend that they

should be jointly and severally held to restitute US$6,118.00, representing undocumented

transactions.

Statement of Accountability

466. In this report, it is required that I hold people accountable for public monies entrusted to them

for the purposes of providing services to the taxpayers. Section 53.7 of the Executive Law of

1972 defined the minimum reporting requirements in my audits. Section 53.7 requires me to

report the following:

• Any officer or employee who has willfully or negligently failed to collect or receive monies

belonging to the Government.

• Any public monies not duly accounted for and paid into an authorized depository.

• Any appropriation that was exceeded or applied to a purpose or in manner not authorized by

law.

• Any deficiency or loss through the fraud, default or mistake of any person.



• Inadequate or ineffective internal control of public monies and assets. When appropriate, the

report shall also include recommendations for executive action or legislation deemed

necessary to improve the receipt, custody, accounting and disbursement of public monies

and other assets.

• The total irregularities noted in the audit amounted to US$131,484.00, representing breach

of contracts, irregular transactions, undocumented transactions and lack of compliance with

laws and regulations. The US$131,484.00 excludes US$50,745.24 which was derived

from the US$28,745.24 paid to County Builders for three projects and the US$22,000.00

paid to LICOME Inc for which I have recommended that County Builders and LICOME Inc

should be held for breach of contracts and made to pay general damages.

Acknowledgement 467. I acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided to the GAC by the Ministry of Internal

Affairs, Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Finance during the course of the audits. I

would also like to acknowledge the maximum cooperation provided by Ecobank. I would further

like to thank the Engagement Manager, the audit team and the staff of the GAC that supported

me in finalizing this report.



ACCOUNTABILITY SCHEDULE

NO. NAME POSITION PROJECT TITLE/TOPIC No supporting

document/not

accounted for

Unpaid Tax USD Misappropriation USD REF. PERAGRAPH COMMENT

1 Rosalind Sneh , J. Michael

Wisseh, Johnson T. Wreh Michael

K. W. Tarwreh Sr, & Nyewoti

Wollor

Superintendent, Assistant

Superintendent for

Development, PMC

Chairman,PMC Treasuerer &

PMC Assistant Treasurer

Trembo Project 9,650.08 56 Should be made to restitute US$9,650.08

representing payment made to the illegally operated

company, NAFAPD. NAFAPD failed to deliver on the

Trembo Project. Work on the Trembo Project was not

started.

2 Rosalind Sneh, Johnson T. Wreh ,

J. Michael Wisseh, Michael K. W.

Tarwreh, Sr and Nyewoti Wollor

Superintendent,

Development

Superintendent, Chairman,

Treasurer & Assistant

Treasurer

Gyabo Community Project the

construction of a Town Hall in

Garraway City, Trehn District,

Grand Kru County

$9,344.44 143 Should be made to restitute the US$9,344.44 paid to

NAFAPD, an illegally operated company. This amount

represents the total payment to the illegally operated

company, NAFAPD for the implementation of the

Project but work on the Project was not started.

3 Dennis Wiah PMT Project Technician Bolloh Community Project 9,472.30 217 Should be made to restitute the US$9,472.30 for not

delivering on contractual terms as he only planted

sticks in the ground.

4 Gbenimah B. Slopadoe Grand Kru County Electoral

District # 1 Representative

Buah project construction of a

Guest House in Buah, Gee City

4,436.09 238 Failing to live up to the terms of his promisory

note.No work was done on the project.

5 Rosalind Sneh, Johnson T. Wreh ,

J. Michael Wisseh, Michael K. W.

Tarwreh, Sr and Nyewoti Wollor


Superintendent for

Development, PMC



Forpoh project construction of

a Town Hall in Parluken Town,

Forpoh District,

9,437.92 245 Should be made to restitute US$9,437.92

representing money paid to Matthew Jugbo for the

construction of the Town Hall for which Matthew

Jugbo did not perform.

6 Abacus K. Nimene Contractor Jloh Project renovation of a

school building in Betu City,

Jloh Statutory District


representing balance unaccounted. The project is

incomplete.7 Rosalind Sneh, J. Michael

Wisseh, Johnson T. Wreh,

Michael J. K. Trawreh & Nyewoti

Wollor


Superintendent for

Development, PMC



Jrao (Sass Town) project the

renovation of the

Administrative Building in

Jekwikpo City

9,800.00 274 Should be made to restitute US$ 9,800.00

representing the amount paid to the local contractor

for the Project and the local contractor did not

perform. The Project remains incomplete.

8 Nyandeh Sieh Contractor Kplio project the rehabilitations

of the roads from Kayken to Big

Fleneken and from Big Suehn

to Filoken, Barclayville

Chiefdom


representing the amount he received for the Project

and did not perform. No work was done on the

Project.

9 Rosalind Sneh, J. Michael

Wesseh, Johnson T. Wreh,

Michael J. K. Trawreh & Nyewoti

Wollor


Superintendent for

Development, PMC



Qualoh Community Project the

construction of a School

building in Gbanken, Wedabo

Chiefdom

9,785.17 302 Should be made to restitute US$ 9,785.17

representing money paid for the implementation of

the Project. The Project remains at foundation level.

10 John S. Youboty MDMC CEO and General

Manager

Purchase an earth moving

equipment, one dump truck,

one new double cabin pick-up,

one new motor bike, fuel oil

and lubricants

32,350.00 319 Should be mde to restitute US$32,350.00

representing money paid for administration, fuel and

lubricants for which no material justification and

supporting documents were provided to acquit the

payment, as the equipment was still in Monrovia and

not in the use

11 Rosalind Sneh Superintendent, Grand Kru

County

CELLCOM CONTRACT 900 410 Should be made to restitute US$ 900.00 representing

money she received from the contractual agreement

for the construction of one Cellccom Tower in

Barclayville

ACCOUNTABILITY SCHEDULE

NO. NAME POSITION PROJECT TITLE/TOPIC No supporting

document/not

accounted for

Unpaid Tax USD Misappropriation USD REF. PERAGRAPH COMMENT

12 Rosalind Sneh and T. Michael

Wisseh

Superintendent and

Assistant Superintendent for

Development

Bank Statement

Analysis—First Account


representing amount paid in their name for which no

substantive authority, material justification and

supporting documents were provided during the

course of the audit

13 Michael K.W. Tawreh PMC Treasurer Bank Statement

Analysis—Second Account


representing amount paid in his name for which no

substantive authority, material justification and

supporting documents were provided during the

course of the audits to acquit the payments

SUB TOTAL 24758 $106,726.00

TOTAL 131,484.00

NO. NAME POSITION PROJECT TITLE/TOPIC Misappropriation USD REF. PERAGRAPH COMMENT

1 County

Builders/Francis

Nah Nimene

Contractor/Owner Siklio Community project 9,344.40 78 Should be held for breach of contract and made to pay

general damages for such breach as the Siklio Guest House

Project remains at foundation level. County Builders was paid

US$9,344.40 and failed to complete the Siklio Guest House

Project.

2 LICOME Inc/Joel

V. Printers

Contractor/President Barclayville City Hall Project 22,000.00 102 Should be held for breach of contract and made to pay

general damages for such breach as the Barclayville City Hall

Project remains incomplete.LICOME Inc was paid

US$22,000.00 for the Barclayville City Hall Project but failed

to complete the Project.

3 County

Builders/Francis

Nah Nimene

Contractor/Owner Gbetao Town Hall Project 9,749.41 123 Should be held for breach of contract and made to pay

general damages for such breach as the Gbetao Town Hall

Project remains at the foundation level. County Builders was

paid US$9,479.41, by the Grand Kru County, but failed to

complete the Gbetao Town Hall Project.

4 County

Builders/Francis

Nah Nimene

President County

Builders Company

Nifao Project the construction of

a clinic in Po-River Middle

Town, Trehn District, Grand Kru

County

9,651.43 161 Should be held for breach of contract and made to pay

general damages for such breach as the Nifao Project was

not started. County Builders was paid US$9,651.41, by the

Grand Kru County, but failed to commence work on the

NifaoTown Project.

Total 50,745.24

Accountability Schedule



EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-6EXHIBIT-1

EXHIBIT-6 Cont'dEXHIBIT-1 Cont'd

EXHIBIT-2

EXHIBIT-2 Cont'd

EXHIBIT-3

EXHIBIT-4

EXHIBIT-24EXHIBIT-5

EXHIBIT-6

EXHIBIT-6 Cont'd

Date post:	16-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Report of the Auditor -General · audit report covering the CDF of Grand Kru County for the FY...

Documents