The National Audit Office recorded D164,053,036 paid to Securiport Gambia LLC in arrears and questioned whether the government owed it. Malagen reported a separate estimate of possible loss of at least D274 million. Both figures concern the same airport programme, but each describes a different calculation with a different source. The auditors tied their recovery recommendation on the arrears to legal advice.
The audit recorded D164,053,036 in arrears payments. The D274 million figure comes from Malagen’s separate estimate.
What the audit examined
The 2022 management letter covers transactions from 1 September 2019 to 31 May 2021. Its findings extend beyond the arrears. The auditors examined the award of the contract, the handling of legal advice, fee collection, monitoring and payments. The letter includes responses and follow-up comments. Those sections are useful because they show where the parties agreed about an event, where they disagreed about its meaning and what the auditors wanted the authorities to do next.
A management letter records audit work and recommendations. The authorities responsible for procurement, the parties to the contract and any court considering the matter have distinct roles. A payment voucher shows that money moved. An audit assessment questions whether the payment was properly authorised. A court decision or formal settlement could resolve a dispute over the obligation. The management letter is the direct source for the first two questions as they arise in this audit.
How the proposal became a contract
The auditors say a Securiport agent submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Office of the President. The government proceeded without competitive bidding, according to the management letter. The letter also records the approval to sign and discusses the Attorney General’s advice. The auditors found that contracting authorities signed without taking that advice into account. Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 trace the relevant steps, with correspondence discussed in the report and its appendices.
The company was the proponent. Public authorities made the award decision. That division of roles matters when the account turns to what could have been done differently. The procurement file would show the approvals and legal advice available to the authorities. The contract and any amendments would show the obligations the parties actually agreed to. Public procurement regularly involves these steps. The audit findings concern how the specific Banjul award was handled.
Why the figures cannot be combined
Malagen used the D274 million figure in its investigation to describe possible financial losses across aspects of the arrangement. The estimate covers several aspects of the arrangement. The figure in the official audit covers payments for one specific claim. Anyone comparing the two figures should check the period, what the figure measures and whether an underlying sum is counted in both accounts before attempting any arithmetic.
Section 3.1.28 of the audit lists D164,053,036 in payments for claimed arrears. The claim covered 1 October 2019 to 31 August 2020, when collection of the agreed fee had not yet started. Securiport’s recorded response relied on its interpretation of the contract and said public bodies had checked the figures. The auditors questioned the basis for the payments and advised government to obtain legal advice, with recovery to follow if the advice favoured the government’s position.
Three records would take this further. A legal opinion could address the government’s obligations. A formal recovery decision could show how the government acted on that advice. A receipt or ledger entry could establish what was recovered. Those records would settle questions that the payment total alone cannot answer.
Where the airport receipts were deposited
The auditors recorded the initial deposit of collections into a Securiport business account. The contract allocated 75% to Securiport and 25% to the Gambia Civil Aviation Authority. Securiport said the joint account was active from May 2021 and maintained that the authority had received the amount due based on the daily collection figures. The reply sets out Securiport’s account of what the authority received.
Operating a joint account and reconciling the receipts are separate tasks. A useful reconciliation would show the total collected for each period, the share due to each party, deposit dates, transfer dates and any amount still outstanding. It would reconcile currency differences and refunds against the ledger. A signed reconciliation backed by statements would show whether a control change also resolved the earlier balances. The existence of a joint account would answer only part of that question.
What the later review can establish
The public record distinguishes the 2022 audit recommendations from the reported 2026 committee recommendations and the November court challenge. A committee’s request for review is part of oversight. A filed court application identifies what the applicant seeks. Publication of a government response, amended terms or an operative order would show whether the contract, the fee or the collection arrangements changed.
The outstanding questions are whether the government acted on its legal advice, whether it recovered any of the arrears and whether the authority received its full share. Securiport’s country page sets out the company’s position on the audit and the Banjul programme.
Commissioned analysis.
