Complaint from Alpha Ibrahim Sesay of 17 Muctaru Drive, off Regent Road, against Standard Times Newspaper in connection with article published on Monday 6th September 2021 titled: “DONOR FUND US $ 1.2M KICKBACKS”, article published on Thursday 9th September, 2021 titled: “12.2BILLION KICKBACK ROCKS MINISTRY OF FINANCE… ACC COMMISSIONER COMMITS TO PROBE FRAUD, article published on 14TH September 2021 titled: “BIO PROBES 1.2M PROCUREMENT FRAUD”, article published on 20th September 2021 titled: “BANK GOVERNOR IN CONSPIRACY …1.2 MILLION PROCUREMENT FRAUD”, article published on 28th September 2021 titled: “WORLD BANK ENDORSES PROCUREMENT FRAUD…OVER BANK SWITCH CONTRACT”, article published on 11th October 2021 titled: “BIG FRAUD PROBE AWAITS ACC…WORLD BANK DUPED”.
On 14th October 2022, the Independent Media Commission (IMC) received a complaint from Alpha Ibrahim Sesay against Standard Times Newspaper for articles published against him on the above dates. Several hearing sessions were conducted on this complaint.
During the first hearing of the Complaint, Mr. Alpha Sesay restated his complaint in the presence of Mustapha Sesay, Managing Editor and Abubakarr Kargbo, reporter.
Alpha Ibrahim Sesay restated that he was complaining the Managing Editor of Standard Times Newspaper for publishing on diverse occasions including between the 6th September 2021 and 11th October 2021 stories in the Standard Times about him which were baseless, misleading, untrue, libelous, derogatory and or intended to bring his hard earned reputation into disrepute. Mr. Alpha Sesay said that the publications wer to all intent and purposes calculated to incite, ferment, and or breed disaffection between him and his employer on the one hand and on the other hand the good and well-meaning people of Sierra Leone, as well as to expose him to hatred, contempt, and public ridicule.
Mr. Sesay stated that on Monday 6th September 2021, the Standard Times published an article captioned: “DONOR FUNDUS$1.2M KICKBACKS”. Mr. Alpha Sesay stated that the characterization of him and all the statements made against him in this publication were untrue, baseless, defamatory and or libelous.
Mr. Sesay also stated that on Thursday 9th September 2021, the Standard Times and its Managing Editor published another article captioned: “LE12.2BN KICK-BACK ROCKS MINISTRY OF FINANCE…ACC COMMISSIONER COMMITS TO PROBE FRAUD”. He also said that the characterization of him in this publication and the statements made were untrue, unfounded, baseless, defamatory and or libelous.
Mr. Sesay further stated that another article was also published on Tuesday 14th September 2021 captioned: “BIO PROBES $ 1.2 MILLION PROCUREMENT” . Mr. Sesay noted that this publication and its characterization of him was also untrue, baseless, defamatory and libelous.
He also informed the meeting that on Monday 20th September 2021 another article was published with caption: “BANK GOVERNOR IN CONSPIRACY $…1.2M PROCUREMENT FRAUD”. He said like the others, this article was also untrue, baseless, defamatory and libelous.
Mr. Sesay went on to say that on 28th September 2021, Standard Times published another article with the following caption: “WORLD BANK ENDORSES PROCUREMENT FRAUD…OVER BANK SWITCH CONTRACT”. Again he said the statements made in this publication and the characterization of him was untrue, baseless, unfounded, defamatory and libelous.
The Complainant mentioned that the last publication with the following caption: “BIG FRAUD PROBE AWAITS ACC”, which was published on Monday 11th October like all the others, was untrue, baseless, unfounded, defamatory and libelous.
During the hearing session that was held on Tuesday 12th April, 2022, Alpha Sesay restated his complaint on a supplementary affidavit that was also part of his complaint in the presence of Mustapha Sesay, Managing Editor of Standard Times Newspaper.
Mr. Alpha Sesay stated that sometime in October 2004, the World Bank prepared a handbook titled ‘Standard Bid Evaluation Form Supply and Installation of Information Systems Single-Stage Bidding’. He said that the said handbook is a concise document and at page 9 & 11 it explained the bid process including but not limited to bid prices by various bidders. At page 17, the document outlined the issues with the bid documentations provided by Interswitch (one of the bidders) and on page 122 the name of the institution and designation of the members of the evaluation Committee are listed of which he was not a member. He further stated that the evaluation committee was constituted by Bank of Sierra Leone and that the evaluation committee members were people with relevant experience and mandate to carry out their assignment, and also that the committee was independent and was mandated to evaluate bids working with input from donor partners such as the World Bank and the Bank of Sierra Leone among others.
He reiterated that email correspondence was exchanged between members of the Project Fiduciary Management Unit (PFMU) and the World Bank. He said that three email correspondences between a numbers of officials including officials from the World Bank, confirmed that the evaluation process leading to the award of the contract was very transparent.
Mr. Sesay also stated that by a letter dated 12th September 2020 and 29th September 2020, Interswitch Limited (one of the bidders) wrote letters of complaint to him.
He went further to state that by letter dated 9th October 2020, 20th October 2020 and 6th September 2020, in his capacity as team lead Project Fiduciary Management Unit, he replied to the complaint letters received from Interswitch Limited, answering in detail various questions and/or issues that they had raised, which again demonstrated a very transparent process.
Mr. Alpha Sesay also stated that between 4th August 2020 to 23rd September 2020, there were email correspondences between and among the Independent Contractor of the bidding process, members of the Fiduciary Management Unit and the Bank of Sierra Leone.
The Complainant also noted that on 25th September 2020, the World Bank sent an email to the members of the Government of Sierra Leone and the Project Fiduciary Management Unit signifying that they had no objection to awarding the contract to the qualified bidder.
Mr. Sesay also said that by email dated 28th September 2020, a member of the Project Fiduciary Management Unit notified the successful bidder of the intention to award the contract.
He further stated that by email dated 27th October 2020, the task force team leader of the World Bank responsible for the project wrote to the Project Coordinator of the Sierra Leone Financial Inclusion Project informing him that the complaints from Interlink and that the World Bank’s clearance of the project still stands and that the project team can go ahead to award the contract.
Mr. Alpha Sesay also stated that for the year ended 2020; the Audit Service Sierra Leone prepared a final Management letter on the Audit of the Sierra Leone Financial Inclusion Project.
Mr. Sesay also said that on the 5th February 2021, the Government of Sierra Leone and the awarded contractor signed a contract for the design, supply and Installation of the National Switch of Sierra Leone.
He also stated that by letter dated 31st March 2021, the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA) wrote a letter to him requesting that the PFMU makes available to the NPPA relevant documents for its review.
Mr. Sesay also said that by letter dated 7th May 2021. A member of PFMU sent a letter to the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA) duly acknowledging receipt of the said letter and attachments and nothing further was heard from NPPA.
He also noted that by letter dated 13th July 2021, the World Bank wrote a letter to him. He said that in the said letter the World Bank alluded to the fact that the Audit of Audit Service Sierra Leone was independent and further stated “In respect to the first matter, our procurement colleagues advised there were no outstanding issues from the World Bank side in respect to the contract award to BPC. That they had accepted the 2020 audit.
He said that Interlinks Limited used to trade under the name Interlinks Commercial Enterprises Limited.
Mr. Sesay concluded by informing the Committee that he seek immediate end to the malicious, defamatory and libelous publications against him and that he needed redress .
After restating his complaint members of the committee asked him several questions regarding his complaint. A member of the Committee asked him whether he contacted Standard Times Newspaper for his own side of the story to be heard. He said he did not contact them personally but that the ICT team did but that Standard Times did not cooperate.
He was also asked whether Standard Times contacted him. He answered that at no time was he contacted for his own side of the story.
At another hearing session held on Tuesday 5th July 2022, Philip Neville, Publisher of Standard Times responded to the complaint.
In responding to the complaint, Mr. Philip Neville, Publisher of Standard Times Newspaper said that they still stand by their story. He informed the meeting that he had documentary evidence and a witness to substantiate their stories. He submitted the Audit Report in evidence, saying that what they wrote was got from the Audit report. Mr. Neville said according to the Audit Report, during the review of procurement documents, for the installation of National Switch, they noted that the contract price of $ 5,900,000 awarded to BPC varied significantly from BPC’s total bid price of $3,300,000 and evaluation price of $2,700,000 leading to a difference of $600,000 and $1,200,000, and that was a concern raised by the Audit Report. He said, that also became a concern to them as a media institution because the money in question was not a grant but a loan which would be paid back.
Mr. Neville reiterated that despite the concern raised by the Auditor General, they still went ahead to send out notices of award which was also cautioned by the National Public Procurement Authority (NPPA). He stated that NPPA wrote two letters – one on 23rd February and the other on 31st March 2021, requesting that they put a hold on the award of the contract. He submitted photocopy of the two letters by NPPA in evidence. Mr. Neville said that there was nothing they published that they did not cross-check.
After his response, members of the Committee asked him some questions for more clarifications. Mr. Neville was asked whether he knew why the price for the procurement was increased. He said he did not know and that this was also the concern of the Audit. He said that they were not able to defend the increase. Mr. Neville was also asked whether it was the function of Mr. Sesay to fix the price. He answered that he believed it was Mr. Sesay’s function. He explained that there was an original amount for the contract and that even if it were to be increased, it should have been justified, but they did not.
He was asked for his opinion whether he meant the money was stolen because it was increased without justification. He answered in the affirmative that it was not only in his opinion but also the opinion of the Auditor General, as the report stated that the process was not transparent. He was also asked whether he meant the money was stolen because the Audit Report said that the process was not transparent. He said yes because that was an indication that the money was stolen.
He was also asked to whom the contract was awarded? He answered that it was awarded to BPC. The Complaints Committee Chairman asked Mr. Neville whether he knew this company the Company that won the contract. He said ‘no’. Asked whether Mr. Sesay was involved with this company? Mr. Neville said he did not know. He was also asked whether this company was favoured. He said he did not know because he did not investigate that.
Mr. Neville was also asked whether he knew if the company paid a bribe to be awarded the contract. He said he did not know. He was further asked what the term kickbacks meant to him. He answered that kickbacks meant the commission that one gets for doing something. The Committee’s Chairman said that kickbacks and bribes are the same but Mr, Neville disagreed to that. He was asked whether because $1,200,000 was added without justification and that because the Audit Report queried it and NPPA also queried it that it should be called a kickback. He said ‘Yes’. Mr. Neville was asked whether he had any justification that a kickback was paid? He said ‘No’. Do you have any evidence about the kickbacks? He answered that he had evidence but they were not material evidence. He said he spoke with people who told him about that. Neville explained that someone showed him a jeep that was alleged to have been a bribe but because he could not link it he did not mention it in his story as it could not be justified.
Concerning the headline of 28th September 2021 “World Bank Endorses Fraud” he said he came up with that headline because during the period, a response was given to them stating that World Bank had given a go ahead to the team. He said therefore they saw that there was a conflict in World Bank saying no at one time and saying yes at another time. He was asked whether that mean that World Bank had endorsed fraud. He said ‘Yes’ because they say no today and yes the other time.
The witness, Abubakarr Kargbo was cross-examined. He was asked the time at which he went to interview Mr. Sesay. He said early September 2021. He was asked where he went to conduct the interview. He said he went to the Ministry of Finance. He said he did not know Mr. Seay personally and he spoke with somebody who called Mr. Sesay on the phone and the person later told him that Mr. Sesay said he would not talk to him. The Committee’s Chairman informed the witness that Mr. Sesay does not work at the Ministry of Finance. That his office is at Howe Street, so if he went to the Ministry of Finance then he had gone to the wrong office. Therefore he did not make reasonable effort to reach Mr, Sesay in order to cross-check with him. The Chairman reiterated that Mr. Sesay had denied any one contacting him to get his own side of the story.
Mr. Neville was also asked whether it would have been better to have mentioned in the story that they made effort to reach Mr. Sesay but could not reach him? He said he stated that in some of the publications. Mr. Neville was asked whether it would have been better to have put the headlines in another way for instance to have said that Audit report says that the procurement was not transparent? Mr. Neville replied that the way he put the headlines was the only way he could draw the attention of the public and the Anti- Corruption to the issue.
Mr. Neville was also asked that according to page 3, at paragraph 1.3 of the overall conclusion, of the Audit Report which he submitted in evidence, the Audit Report stated that the overall controls in place at the project management unit were satisfactory and that the project team has put in place measures that would instill probity and accountability in the use of project resources. Mr. Neville was asked what he had to say to that? The Committee asked how he could say that the process was fraud while the Audit report was saying that the process was satisfactory. To this Mr. Neville pointed the committee to page 2 of another document he had submitted in evidence titled Procurement 3.2 (iv) which states as follows:
“As a result of these issues noted in points (i) to (iv) we cannot
determine whether the procurement process was conducted
in an open, transparent and competitive manner”.
Mr. Neville said the Audit Report conflicted itself in their submissions, to be questioning the process and later saying that the process was satisfactory, and that they were the professionals in this area. Therefore the Audit Report has to be blamed for the contradictions and not Standard Times.
The Chairman asked if a journalist has a source that proved to be unreliable whether the journalist should go ahead to use that source to make the imputations like the ones used in Standard Times publication’s headlines.
The Chairman, Commissioner Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai, pointed out to Mr. Neville that under the management’s Response & Proposed Actions on page 1 under paragraph 3.2, the reasons for the difference in price was explained in clear terms. He further pointed out that the explanations should have taken care of Mr. Neville’s concerns; he said in terms of prudence it would have been better for Standard Time to have mentioned the management report explanations. Mr. Neville was also asked if given another opportunity to rewrite the stories whether he would have done it in a different way. Mr. Neville replied that he would do the publications in the very same way. In other words, he still stands by his story “time did Standard Times contact him for his own side of the story to be heard.
Committee’s findings and recommendations
During deliberations the Committee noted that Standard Times relied on the Audit Report as its main defence. However, Standard Times did not take into cognisance, the overall recommendations of the Audit report. He only took into cognisance the first part of the Audit Report. However, the overall recommendation stated that the process was satisfactory. The Committee further noted that the publication was inaccurate.
The Committee further noted that Standard Times did not make reasonable effort to cross-check the story with the Complainant. The Reporter said he went to cross-check the story with the complainant at the Ministry of Finance. The Committee however noted that the Complainant does not work at the Ministry of Finance and that his office is at Howe Street.
The Committee further noted that the Standard Times breached the accuracy provision of the Media Code of Practice.
The Committee recommends as follows:
- That a fine of Le1,000 (One Thousand Leones) be levied on for each of the six publications in line with principle 3 of the Media Code of Practice dealing with accuracy
- That the newspaper publishes a retraction with due prominence for each or the six publications
