2. 1

54. 53 6.14 PROJECTS SUPERVISION Presently RMFA does not have a separate Monitoring and Evaluation Unit as already highlighted in Section 6.9 above. The team of engineers that monitors the implementation of projects implemented by the Local Councils are also part of the Management Team th at approves the disbursement of funds to the Local Councils, which may have therefore depleted the degree of objectivity required of those engineers to ensure that projects were implemented as planned. Owing to the above, the review team physically inspec ted a sample of projects sponsored by RMFA and implemented by the Sierra Leone Roads Authority in Western Area (Urban & Rural) and Eight (8) Local Councils including Western Area Rural District Council (WARDC), Port Loko District Council, Kambia District Council, Tonkolili District Council, Bombali District Council, Makeni City Council, Pujehun District Council, Bo District Council and Kenema District Council, to confirm that projects were delivered as specified and that any modifications were relevant, ap propriately communicated, documented, approved and accounted for; (Change Control) and the planned benefits were or being achieved. 6 .14.1 WESTERN URBAN & WESTERN RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL The review team conducted physical sight verification on eleven (11) projects implemented by the Western Rural Council and Sierra Leon Road Authority respectively , within the western rural and Western urban area s . Some of these projects are divided into Lots . Almost all the projects implemented in the western areas show value for money, ex cep t for a few that ha d issues.

35. 34 6. 8 .0 FUEL MANAGEMENT. 6. 8 .1 Area of focus: Fuel injector (Fuel to D istance Chart) W e observed that RMFA does not use a standard Fuel Liter/Distance guide (Fuel Injector) in allocating fuel to vehicles on official trips to the provinces. Instead , cash is subjectively disbursed to staff for fuel as may be determined by the respective Head s of Department (Director) and with the aim that any balance is retired. Implication This may expose the cash given for fuel to be misappropriated since it was not based on any standard formula . Recommendation We recommend that the Director of Administration liaise with the Ministry of Transport and A viation for the development of a provincial trips Fuel Liter/ Distance guide (Fuel Injector) for the use by RMFA.

6. 5 and the Local Councils, for the maintenance of the feeder roads throughout all the Twenty - two (22) Councils in Sierra Leone. The implementing Agencies must submit an approved work program to the RMFA 3 months before the end of the year and disbursements are made based on the sub mission of signed certificate s by the implementing Agencies to the RMFA. Strategically, the Administration is headed by a Non - E xecutive Board as Chairman and an E xecutive Board as the Chief Executive Director (CEO) . They are all appointed by the President as enshrine d in Section 3 (1) (a - g) of the RMFA Act2010. Operationally, the Administration has three core Directorates, namely, the Directorate of Finance and Investments , the Directorate of Planning , Technical Compliance Monitoring and V aluation and the Directorate of Admin istration and Corporate Service. RMFA has over the past three years which is the scope of the review (2019 – 2021) disbursed to SLRA and the 22 Local Councils a total of Three Hundred and Fifty - four Million, seven hundred and thirty - fiv e thousand, one hundred and thirty - six New Sierra Leones (NLE 354,735,136), that is, Three hundred and Fifty - four Billion, Seven hundred and thirty - five million and one hundred and thirty - six thousand O ld Sierra Leone Leones (OLE 354,735,136,000) towards Roads Maintenance in Sierra Leone . 2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REVI E W In addition to the mandate of the Prevention Department as enshrined in Section 7(2) (f - n ) of the ACC Act, 2008 as amended in 2019, the main justification of the review w as that:  There may be administrative gaps or weaknesses in the management of funds received by RMFA meant for road maintenance that m a y lead to corruption.

80. 79 have stood out using RMFA data as examples), where all 22 District Council’s Chief Administrators, engineers, Monitoring and Evaluation Officers and Internal Auditors will share knowledge and exper ience on the quality of their works. Management’s Response We note your recommendation.

1. 0 REVIEW OF THE SYSTEMS AND PROCESSESS OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER 2022

32. 31  The notches are ranges that starts with the figure in the notch and end w ith a figure less than the start of the next notch.  It does not have to be the exact amount/figure stated in the notch. Below is the list of staff members and the notches they fall in. 6. 6 .2 Area of focus: Personnel Files. Findings We observed that staff/ personnel files maintained by the Human Resource Office are not indexed and documents i n the personnel files were also not serially numbered .

43. 42 does not represent V alue f or M oney (VFM) , because the bidder WEGO LIMITED to wh o m the contract was awarded , initially bided Le409 , 000,000 but a contract of Le4 90 ,000,000 was signed with WEGO LIMITED citing a drop in the value of the Leones and unavailability of the United State Dollar. That t hereby creat ed an extra avoidable expenditure of Le87,000,000 representing a contract price increase of 21.6 % just 3 months from the bid period in June to the Contract date in September. Th at Contract was initially awarded to Freetown Commodity Limited in July 2019 for Le 390,000,000 but was terminated in September 2019 ( within six weeks ) c iting delivery delays as a reason. The Contract was then immediately re - a warded to WEGO LIMITED again in September 2019 for Le490,000,000 though WEGO Limited initially bided Le403,000,000. WEGO LIMITED finally delivered the vehicle in November2019, almost 2 months after the contract was awarded . Implication Re - awarding the contract to WEGO LIMITED exposed the Administration to at least an extra expenditure to the tune of Le87,000,000 Le (490,000,000 – 403,000,000) and at most Le100,000,000 Le (490,000,000 – 390,000,000) . This extra expenditure would have been avoided if the contract awarded to Freetown Commodity Limited would have been extended to at most (November 2019) the period in which WEGO LIMITED finally delivered the vehicle. Recommendation We recommend that Procurement Number RMFA/DACS/NCB/004/2019 of One (1) Toyota F ortuner be investigated by the Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC) . Management’s Response We hold a contrary view to the Commission’s recommendation. The above procurement was done with due process and in accordance with NPPA Regulations. Freetown Commodity of 57 Bathurst Street Freetown was the most responsive Bidder and initially a contract p rice of Le 309,000,000 (old note) was

42. 41 Implication Issuing stores / consumable s without approved Stores Requisitions Vouchers is contrary to best practice and may lead to store pilferage. Recommendation We recommended that the storekeeper ensure s that stores items are only issued on approved Stores Requisition Vouchers . Management’s Response We believe this was an oversight by your team as items are always only issue d on approved Stores Requisition Vouchers. Items are not issued without the due process i.e. requisition, store issue voucher and allocated store ledger before supply can be made. We will pay a lot more attention to these fine details going forward and continue to monitor for any variant to this standard. 6.1 3 PROCUREMENT Procurement is the process of discovering and agreeing to terms and purchasing goods, services, or other works from an external source, often with the use of shopping, tendering or competitive bidding It also includes the process of disposing of extra and unserviceable goods through clearly prescribed guidance. The p rocurement process within Ministries Departments and Agencies (MDAs) in Sierra Leone is intended to ensure public entities receive or dispose of goods, services, or works at the best possible price when aspects such as quality, quantity, time, and location are compared . The overall idea is to promote value for money idea acquisition and disposals made by MDAs. 6.1 3 .1 Area of Focus: Procurement of One ( 1) Toyota Fortune in 2019 Finding The review team observed that the procurement of one (1 ) Toyota Fo r t uner in 2019 on Procurement Number RMFA/DACB/004/2019 was un economical and

5. 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Anti - Corruption C ommission (ACC) was established by an Act of Parliament in the year 2000 with the sole objective of champion ing the fight against corruption in Sierra Leone . T he primary aim of the ACC is to take all steps to eradicate corruption (Section 7(1) of the Anti - Corruption Act 2008 as amended in 2019.) . The Pr evention Department has the mandate to review practices and procedures in G overnment Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) according to Section 7(2) (f) - ( n ) and Section 8 of the Anti - Corruption Act of 2008 as amended in 2019 ; to im prove service delivery, identify corruption vulnerabilities and proffer recommendations . As part of the approved Prevention D epartmental Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the year 2022 , the System s and P rocesses Review U nit conducted a Holistic Review o f th e P ractices and Procedures of the Road Maintenance Fund A dministration (RMFA) for the years 2019 – 2021 , to identify systems lapses and corruption vulnerabilitie s with the view to address ing those lapses and vulnerabilities through recommendations to ensure that resources are effect ively and efficiently utilized, by RMFA and its implementing partners. RMFA is a corporate body established by an Act of Parliament on the 9 th of April 2010 to establish a Road Maintenance Fund and an Administration for financing the maintenance of the core road networks and to provide for other relate d matters. 1 The Administration receives its revenue from two main sources, Road User Charges (RUC) appropriated by the Government of Sierra Lone (GoSL) and from Vehicle Licenses and Registration Fees (VLRF) wi th t he Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority (SLRS A). RMFA is the Financier of all road maintenance work throughout Sierra Leone and disburses funds to the implementing Agencies like the Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA) for the maintenance of the city roads and main trunk roads, 1 See Title of the Road Maintenance Act 2010

14. 13 Implication There is the risk of the Director of Finance who has a direct superior influence on the IT function adversely influences the operations and management of the Administration’s IT which may create corruption opportunities. Recommendation We recommend that the organogram be reviewed to separate the IT function from the Directorate of Finance and Investment and be moved to the Directorate of Admin and Corporate Services or the Office of the Chief Executive Officer. Management’s Response The recommendation of the commission is noted. However, we envi sage no apparent threat to our operations and the Administration. Hence, we believe the organogram should not be altered. 6.1.5 Non - Executive Board Cost The Mission of the RMFA is to secure and manage the funds of the Administration cost - effectively to ensure timely routine and periodic maintenance of the national road network. The Review Team observed that the Administration incurred high costs (See table below) specifically in 2020 and 2021 representing 8.86 % and 6.34 % of total administrative costs respectively toward the maintenance of its Non - Executive Board. That seemed con trary to the Mission of the Administration. Please see the table one the next page :

62. 61  No - proper descriptions of the project either on the signpost or on the structure constructed. Implication Lack of proper project description may result in the community people or visitors (beneficiaries) not being aware of the deliverables of the project , thus unable to scrutinize contractors or the local council on the deliverables of the project. Recommendation We recommend that the Management of RMFA ensures there is an unambiguous signpost description of projects at the start and end points of all projects funded by RMFA. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. We want the Commission to note that we have been making constant strides to fix these anomalies and can assure the Commission further that all signposts after the review period were designed as specified by the Administration. 6.1 6 . 4 Area of Focus : Maintenance work along Gberike to Sanu (45km) . That work consisted of the construction of one Box Culvert, maintenance work along Massama Road , M aintenance work along Bamoi to Konta (0.87km), Mampia Lane and the construction of Box culverts, Mainte na nce of a Bridge along Bolon and the rehabilitation of 1bridge for a total cost of Le 1,604,215,620.00 . Findings The planned construction of 1 (One) double box (45km) culverts was upwardly modified to a bridge at the same cost. The bridge and the culverts were properly constructed, were in good shape and were effectively utilized.

13. 12 Implication The maintenance cost of this vehicle had created a financial burden on the Administration contrary to the Mission of the Administration of “securing and managing the funds of the Administration cost - effectively to ensure timely routine and periodic maintenance of the national road network. This vehicle may be mostly used for purposes not related to RMFA, thereby putting pressure on the other vehicles in th e pool. Recommendation The transport and fuel allowances to the chairman of the Board should be reviewed and a comprehensive policy developed for the proper management of the Board affairs. Management’s Response The monthly transportation allowance of NLe2,500 to the Board Chairman has been stopped since September 2022. As per your recommendation, we are in the process of drafting a comprehensive policy for the administration of the Board affairs . 6.1.4 Organizational Structure (Organogram) Finding Best practice requires the Information Technology (IT) function to be either a standalone Directorate or placed under the Administrative Directorate. This is so to ensure the independence of The IT fun ction, especially any Directorate that has direct financial responsibilities. We observed that the IT function was under the supervision of the Director of Finance and Investment that has direct responsibility for the preparation of the Administration’s f inancial records and Statements.

16. 15 Implication Such high cost s on a Non - E xecutive Board of over a billion Leones per year in 2020 and 2021 respectively , may negatively affect the A dministration ’s financial ability to fund road maintenance project s (The purpose for which the A dministration was established) . Recommendation We recommend that the M anagement of RMFA liaise with the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to review the administrati ve cost toward s the maintenance of the N on - E xecutive B oard so that there will be more savings to fund road maintenance projects that form the core of the operations of the A dministration. Management’s Response Noted. This will be looked at closely to achieve the desired results as highlighted by the Commission. 6. 1.6 Deputy Chief Executive Officer The RMFA Act, 2010 is silent on the Position of Deputy Chief Executive Office r but t he R eview T eam observed that a Deputy Ch ief Executive Officer was appointed to RMFA even when the RMFA Act , 2010 did not make a provision for a Deputy . Implication Without the provision of the position of a Deputy Exe cutive Officer in the Act, the position will not be legitimized and there is a tendency for the post holder to be disadvantaged. Recommendation We recommend that the A dministration liaise with the Office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to r eview the RMFA Act to reflect the position of Deputy Chief E xecutive Officer.

44. 43 awarded to Freetown Commodity on the 3 rd July 2019, with a delivery period of Four (4) weeks because the need was very urgent. There was a delivery delay to which procurement committee was updated. The supplier was given an additional two weeks to deliver since the vehicle was urgently required but they still were unable to deliver. Several other engagements followed with the supplier to no avail on delivery. The procurement committee was left with no option, but to use clause 24.1 Termination by Default – “The Purchaser, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of contract, by written notice of default sent to the supplier may terminate this contract in whole or in part”. Contract with Freetown Commodity was Terminated on the 4 th of September 2019. The procurement committee held a meeting and instructed the procurement officer to contact the second most responsive bidder, Wego Company Ltd with a bid price of Le403,000,000 (old leones). Notification of award was sent to Wego Company Ltd of 32 Ecowas Street as the second successful Bidder. In their response/ acceptance , they requested for an increase due to the current rate of exchange as compared to when they initially submitted their bid. The committee did som e due diligence by analyzing the price increase as against the value of the United States D ollar n ine (9) weeks later , coupled with the fact that the vehicle was urgently required. The committee approved the price variation using SECTION 150 SUBSECTION 5 o f the public procurement regulations ( “ contracts should not be varied by more than 25% ” ). The contract was signed based on the prevailing market cost (Le490.000,000)due to inflation and supply chain constrains. Note: all documentations on this procurement process are available for inspection ( Minute s of procurement committee meetings and all relevant correspondences ).

53. 52 Implication There is a tendency that the disposal process on the vehicle was marred with corruption even though there was an advice from SLRA on such disposal taking into consideration the minor repairs to be done for the vehicle to be road worthy Recommendation We recommend that the disposal of Vehicle Number AJP 258 be investiga ted by the Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC). Management’s Response  This vehicle was purchased in 2014 at a cost of Le166,900,000. The vehicle was used for over seven (7) years and incurred a total maintenance cost of Le111,838,398.88 in just 2020 to 2021. The vehicle was disposed of for a cost of Le 55,000,000. Again, the ACC can verify the above costs from our GP Dynamics Accounting software.  We also note the ACC referring to SLRSA report on the vehicle insisting th ere were no major issues with the vehicle. This was practically because we had spent a whopping Le 111,838,398.88 in two years to keep it on the road, but we still continued to take it to the garage after every M&E trip. Any vehicle management expat will t ell you, a vehicle over seven (7) years old and costing that much to keep on the road does not make economic sense and must be replaced.  With all the above indicators the Administration is impressed with generating Le55,000,000 for an over Seven - year - old vehicle costing over 111m to keep on the road in its last two years. Note: Records of letters sent to Sierra Leone Road safety Authority with attachment of maintenance cost from 2019 to 2021 copying in National Assets Commission and Ministry of Transport and Aviation on the disposal of this vehicle are available for inspection.

63. 62 However, there were no proper descriptions of the project on the signposts erected. Implication Lack of proper project description may result in the community people or visitors (beneficiaries) not being aware of the deliverables of the project, thus unable to scrutinize contractors or the local council on the deliverables of the project. Recommendation We recommend that the Management of RMFA ensures there is an unambiguous signpost description of projects at the start and end points of all projects funded by RMFA. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. We want the Commission to note that we have been making constant strides to fix these anomalies an d can assure the Commission further that all signposts after the review period were designed as specified by the Administration. 6.1 6 . 5 Area of Focus : Construction of four (4) single box culverts from Masingbi to Makoma R oad in the 2019 P roject. Findings We observed that:  All four (4) culverts were properly constructed, were in a goo d shape and showed value for money Implication Lack of proper project description may result in the community people or visitors (beneficiaries) not being aware of the deliverables of the project, thus unable to scrutinize contractors or the local council on the deliverables of the project.

40. 39 Management’s Response Before the query by the Commission, a sset listing s were pasted at the back of the respective office doors. However, not all of these were up - to - date. We can now confirm that all listings at every office are up - to - date. We will work toward implementing recommendation number 2 as it is a salient recommendation . 6.1 2 STORES MANAGEMENT 6.1 2 .1 Area of Focus: Store S pace Fi ndings The store space is inadequately small to hold all items purchased. M ost of the goods/ consumable items were held at the Human Resource O ffice (HRO) and the storekeeper’s office for safe keeping. Implication Items can easily go missing or misused by staff as they were easily accessible. Recommendation: We recommended that management provides adequate storeroom to accommodate all consumables procured by the Administrations. Management’s Response We note your recommendation. However, we must stress that our office space is limited and that we do not have a whole bunch of items in stores to necessitate your recommend ation. Furthermore, the items at the HR office were temporarily placed and were to be used for refreshment at the end of year staff session.

46. 45 Management’s Response On the procurement of Toyota land cruiser hardtop 2019, with procurement number RMFA/DACS/NCB/01/2019. This seems to be a mix - up on part of the ACC that the contract was signed for a price of Le488,000,00. The contract was signed for Le448,043,670. Wego company Limited of 32 Ecowas Street Freetown quoted their price at $51,000. At first, the evaluation committee evaluated the bid price us ing exchange rate of Le 8,669.49/USD$1 ($51,000 @ Le8,669.49 will be 442,143,990). The committee later realized that the central bank exchange rate as of 9 th April 2019 when the bids were submitted and opened was Le8,785.17/USD$1 (Therefore, $51,000 @ rate Le8,785.17 will be Le448,043,670) on which the contract was signed. So, the actual variance as per exchange rate was about Le6,000,000 (old leones) Note: There are documentations on this procurement including the exchange rate printout from Central Bank o f Sierra Leone for that day, signed contract and minutes of procurement committee meeting approving evaluation report and contract detailing Le448,043,670 as the final contract value for your inspection. 6.1 3 . 3 Area of Focus: Disposal of Motor V ehicles Section 66(1) of The Public Procurement Act, 2016 states: “ Subject to sub - section (3) of section 5 of the National Assets Commission Act, 2000 the head of a procuring entity shall convene a Board of Survey comprising representatives of departments with unserviceable, obsolete or surplus stores, plant, equipment and vehicles which shall report on the items and, subject to a technical report on them, recommend the best method of disposal after the officer in charge has completed a Board of Survey form. ” Se ction 66 (2) of The Public Procurement Act, 2016 states: “ The Board of Survey’s recommendations shall be approved by the head of the procuring entity and the items shall be disposed of following disposal procedures specified in section 67. ” Findings The review team observed that:

71. 70  The bridge was properly constructed, was of good quality and both the wing walls were neatly done and allowed the free flow of water from both sides. Implication If those single - box culverts are not immediately backfilled erosion will ea t up and narrow that will make the culvert inaccessible thereby giving up on the purpose for which the culverts were constructed. Recommendation We hereby recommend that RMFA facilitates the Tonkololi District Council to collaborate with the councilor in their respective community to m obilize youth to backfill these culverts constructed before they are eroded. Management’s Response We will act accordingly. 6.18 .2 Area of Focus: Earthwork from Masingbi to Makoma village in 2019 by Contractor, A&B enterprise. Findings The Review team observed an inconsistency in distance ( km) between what was specified in the project document and what was delivered. The project document specified earthwork (Spot improvement) of a 6.3km road, which doesn’t correspond with the actual distance of 5.3 km verified by the review team, using the vehicle odometer. Resulting in an adverse variance of 1km. Implication That may mean that the deliverable (The Spot improvement Distance) was downwardly modified by the contractor without approval by the sponsor and project management board ( RMFA and the Tonkolili District Council) respectively , at the same cost. Thereby not achieving value for money in that spot improvement works .

27. 26 are of the view that certain items should be verified by the IAM before taking them to stores but not every item. 6.4.5 Finding The Internal Auditor does not verify documents nor issue a certificate of completion before payments are affected . Implication This deprives the Administration’ Management of double assurance of an independent eye about meeting the criteria relating to any procurement before funds are disbursed. Recommendation Going forward, we recommend, as a means of pre - audit, that all payments be vetted by the Internal Auditor before such payments are made, such that the Auditor has complete knowledge and assurance of assertion of every transaction before payments are made. Management’s Response This is a good control, but we however se e it as time - consuming and could bring about unnecessary bottlenecks to the operations of the Administration. We therefore ask that the process be maintained as it is presently. 6.5.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The Directorate of Finance and Investments is responsible for Financial Management at the RMFA. This Directorate is responsible for managing the finances as well as the financial records of the Administration in line with relevant standards, laws, regulati ons, and procedures. The head of this Directorate is the principal adviser as well as the custodian of internal controls.

57. 56 6.1 4.3 A rea of focus : Maintenance works on John obey Triple Cell Culvert/ Qumran International Investment implemented SLRA . Findings The Team observed that the Stone - pitching - work on both side s of the bridge was intact and met value for money. Though not part of the project, there were potholes on top of the bridge that posed a serious risk if left unattended for a long time thus that needed urgent attention. Implicat ion The potholes and drains of water that settled on top of the bridge will eventually create cracks on the pavement of the bridge, which in the long run might lead to disaster if not immediately attended to. Recommendation: RMFA to facilitate the immediate maintenance of the pavement of the John obey bridge to mitigate the highlighted risk. Management’s Response It is the responsibility of SLRA to regularly assess these assets and implement projects for their maintenance where there are needs. 6.1 4 . 4 Area of Focus: Feeder Road maintenance by Western A rea Rural District Council (WARDC). That project was divided into Lots, and it entailed three projects which were implemented within the Western Area Rural District. That lot included the Construction of a 10 - meter double Bridge at During Street Waterloo Western Rural Distract. Findings The Review Team observed that:

18. 17 Nominee s , liaise with the appropriate authorities to authorize them to appoint Directors from within the A dministration to mitigate the above - highlighted risk. Management’s Response You recommendation is noted. We shall ensure this is adopted going forward. Please also note that contrary to your assertion , the CEO is the only member on your list that is a member of the Board. 6.3.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGEMENT The Public Relation s function of an organization coordinate s the activities that promote the image , understanding and awareness of an organization and its products or services to consumers, businesses, members of the public and other specified audiences. At RMFA the Public Re lations Manager that is under the direct supervision of the CEO is responsible for promoting public awareness about the work of the Administration. 6. 3 .1 Area of focus: Public Relation s Activities. Findings: In an examination of transactions, h uge amounts of cash mostly within the range of Le 29 , 000,000 and Le 4 8 ,000,000 million Old Leones w ere usually disbursed to the Public Relation s Manager (PRM) after every tw o weeks to carryout Public Relation s activities (mostly radio programs) in the provinces . Though payments ranging between Le 2,500,000 to Le 5,000,000 per transaction, per radio station were made it was evident that all transactions were supported with receipts from the respective radio stations . However, all of them were without invoices from the said radio stations to the A dministration payment . S ee samples of such disbursements made to the Public Relation Manager next page .

26. 25 Internal Audit inspected projects only twice per year instead of the every quarter as planned. Recommenda t ion We recommend that one (1) additional Internal Audit Staff (Internal Audit Officer) with the appropriate qualification and experience be recruited to further strengthen the capacity of the Internal Audit function. Management’s Response As a result of cost cutting measure, the IAM will continue to cover the activities of the department solely. The IAM can always work on - the - go in the event there is an issue of emergency. 6.4.4 Area of focus: V erification of G oods Finding The internal Audit Manager does not physically verify goods procured by the Administration before taking them to the store. Implication This deprives the Administration’ Management of the assurance of an independent eye about the quantity, quality and con dition of goods delivered in respect of goods ordered, which may lead to misappropriation. Recommendation Going forward, all goods procured by and delivered to the Administration should be verified by the Internal Auditor before being taken into the stores. Management’s Response We note your concern. However, we think this could render the process painstaking and cumbersome if the IAM should verify all items for stores. We

48. 47 Management’s Response  The Administration did not set up a Survey Board for the disposal of the afore mentioned vehicles and motor bike . However, the procurement committee served a similar purpose with minutes of meeting detailing the approval process. Going forward, w e will set up a Survey Board for the purposes of disposal of assets.  The Administration realized that the vehicles have reached that age where they had no book value and were also incurring high maintenance costs to the Administration. The Administration decided to dispose of the vehicles and motorbike replacing them with new units.  The Administration wrote to the Road Safety Authority , copying the Ministry of Transport and Aviation and National Assets Commission on the disposal with attachment of a spreadsheet detailing maintenance cost incurred from 2019 to 2021. The disposal process was done through national competitive bidding and so ld to the highest responsive bidder.  Going forward, the Administration will set up a Board of Survey on all Disposals.  The National Assets Commission was informed of our most recent disposal of vehicles, and they fully participated and guided the proces s. Note: There are records of all disposal processes including approval of procurement committee and letters sent to Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority , copying the Ministry of Transport and Aviation and Assets commission with spreadsheet attachment detailing high maintenance costs incurred keeping these vehicles on the road from 2019 to 2021. We will suggest that the ACC review these s ystems generated accounting repo rts to have a more informed and rounded picture to mak e sense of the necessity of the disposals .

75. 74 that led to the constructed bridge from the Bo town end, was entirely covered with structures (houses), bushes and plantation owned by the community people, which thereby made the bridge totally inaccessible by motor vehicles, motorbikes, bicycles, and even handcarts. The review team had to leave its vehicle about 100 Meters off and walked between houses to access the bridge.  Both the entrance and exit points of the bridge were not properly backfilled which may m ake the smooth entering and exiting of the bridge by motor vehicles, motorbikes, bicycles, and handcarts very difficult if not impossible, thereby rendering the bridge inaccessible by same.  There was a swamp just after the exit of the bridges towards the Bo Stadium end, the water needed to be diverted or banked if that bridge is to be used by m otor vehicles, motorbikes, and bicycles.  It seemed as if that bridge was constructed (As an alternative path/way/backyard road) only to access the houses/community after the canal from and to the Bo stadium end. Implication The bridge was not utilized for its actual purpose, therefore, does not reflect value for money. Recommendation We recommend that:  RMFA and the Bo District Council collaborate in efforts to ensure the way (Road) leading to the bridge from Bo town end be cleared to ensure the accessib ility of the bridge by motor vehicles, motorbikes, bicycles, and handcarts.  RMFA and the Bo District Council to collaborate efforts to ensure the contractor Lamsal Enterprise, properly backfilled both the entrance and exit ends of the bridge to allow the smooth entering and exiting of the bridge by motor vehicles, motorbikes, bicycles and handcarts.

34. 33 Implication  A vehicle with registration number ASV 162 whose life card is in the name of SLRA creates doubt about the actual owner of the vehicle. This also exposes the vehicle to be ing easily misappropriated.  The non - availability of the life cards of vehicles with registration numbers RMF 001, RMF 003 ATP 232 for examination created doubt about the name in which those vehicles were registered. Recommendation  We recommend that The Director of Administration and Corporate Services ensures that the registration of vehicle number ASV 162 be immediately transferred from Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA) to Roads Maintenance Fund Administration (RMFA)  The Life Cards for Vehicles with registration number RMF 001 procured in 2022 being used by the CEO, RMF 003 Procured in 2021 and ATP 232 procured in 2019 be immediately made available for verification by the ACC R eview T eam to confirm the name in which those vehicles were registered. Management’s Response All recommendations have been fully adhered to. The transfer of ASV 162 from SLRA to RMFA has been completed and the life cards for RMF 001, RMF 003 and APT 232 are all available and could be produced on request for your verification. The Unit has been working on the issue of these life cards for months. The delay was linked to internal bottlenecks at SLRSA. Please find below screen scanned copies of the life cards in question:

49. 48 6.1 3 .4 Area of Focus: Disposal of Motor Vehicles Procurement processes within Ministries Departments and Agencies (MDAs) in Sierra Leone are intended to ensure public entities received or disposed of goods, services, or works at the best possible price when aspects such as quality, quantity, time, and lo cation are compared. The overall idea is to promote value for money in the acquisitions and disposals made by MDAs. Finding The review team observed that motor vehicle AIB 331 was disposed of at a price of at least Le 22,000,000 below its market value seemingly through a forgery process. According to the records examined three people bided for the vehicle as follows:  Mr . Joseph S. Taylor of 29c Old Railway Line Tengbeh Town Freetown bided Le52,000,000  Mr . Benjamin Obang Doi of 19 Edward Street bided Le45,000,000 and  Mr . Malaisa Koroma of 94 Wilkinson Road Freetown bided Le30,000,000  The vehicle was sold to Mr . Malaisa Koroma of 94 Wilkinson Road Freetown (The least responsive bidder) for Le30,000,000 c iting that both the highest bidder for Le52,000,000 and the second highest bidder for Le45,000,000 “Failed to respond to their bid prices after they were contacted by the Road Maintenance Administration. However, we realized that the letters of rejection of the offer examined by the review team claimed to have been submitted by both the highest and second highest bidders have similar signatures, font size etc. . Implication This may imply that the letters of rejection of the offer claimed to have come from the highest and second highest bidders, may have been generated internally to give undue advantage to the least responsive bidder, thereby

37. 36 6. 10 DIRECTORATE OF PLANNING TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION 6. 10 .1 Area of focus: Monitoring and E valuation of Projects Finding Currently , RMFA does not have a separate Monitoring and Evaluation Unit. The team of engineers that monitor the implementation of projects by the L ocal C ouncils and SLRA are also part of the M anagement T eam that plan s the same and approves the disbursement of funds to SLRA and the L ocal C ouncils. They also supervise the implementation of road maintenance work. Implication This may undermine the degree of objectivity required in continuously tracking, assessing, and reporting on the implementation (activities) and results (outputs and outcomes) of road maintenance project s . Recommendation  We recommend that a Monitoring and Evaluation Office r /Manager be recruited to ensure the objective Monitoring and Evaluation of road maintenance projects funded by RMFA.  That the Monitoring and Evaluation Office/Manager so recruited be supervised by and report s directly to the CEO ( T he Board).  Sequel to bullets 1 & 2 above, the Directorate of Planning Technical Compliance Monitoring and V aluation be renamed the Directorate of Planning and Technical Compliance. Management’s Response The Board already approved that a staff be internally hired for this role. Because the role is an engineering one, an engineer has been assigned this duty and has undergone some training. Technically, the role of the PTCM&E department is still M&E but more engineering focus. However, the M&E en gineer has been trained to enhance the M&E component of the department and will continue to report , functionally, directly to the Director of PTCM&E department.

45. 44 6.1 3 .2 Additional Le40,000,000 above Bid Price contract Signed. The review team also observed that a contract of an additional Le 40,000,000 above the bid price was signed with WEGO LIMITED for the supply of one (1) Toyota Land Cruiser Hardtop, Off - Road (4x4) in 2019 on Procurement Number RMFA/DACS/NCB/001/2019. In April 2019 WEGO LIMITED bid Le442,000,000 for the supply of the above vehicle. On 2 nd May 2019 WEGO LIMITED, being the most responsive bidder, was notified of the award of the contract based on the bid price. On the 9 th of May 2019 (7 days after the notification of the contract awar d letter), a contract price of Le488,000,000 was signed with WEGO LIMITED for the supply of the same vehicle. The ceiling price estimated in the Procurement Plan was Le445,000,000 and the Evaluation Committee recommended a Contract Value of Le442,000,000 consistent with the most responsive bid price of Le442 ,000,00 Implication Signing a contract above the bid price of a most responsive bidder could be tantamount to corrupt practice. Recommendation We recommend that:  The additional Le40,000,000 above the bid price by which the contract on Procurement Number RMFA/DACS/NCB/001/2019 for the procurement of one (1) Toyota Land Cruiser Hardtop, Off - Road (4x4) in M a y 2019 be refunded to the Road Maintenance Fund Administration by WEGO LIMITED with in three (3) months of the launch of this report.  Going forward the Management of RMFA should ensure that contracts on procurements are signed based on the most responsive bid price and nothing more, especially if the deliverable (s) are not altered.

11. 10 the administration cost - effectively to ensure timely routine and periodic maintenance of the national road network. Recommendation  The Administration should adhere to th e requirement of the Roads Maintenance Act of eight (8) Board members and not 9 in some cases or 10 in others. Management’s Response As explained at the validation meeting, t his has been regularized ; t he ninth member being the representative of the Ministry of Finance . 6.1.2 Area of Focus: Board Secretary Finding The Road Maintenance Fund Administrations Act, 2010 is silent on who should be the Board Secretary. In MDAs where Board Secretaries are contracted, the Acts always make clear provisions for that, otherwise the Head of Administration acts as Board Secretary.  The Review Team observed that the Administration contracted Cohort Consultancy in 2020, to act as Board Secretary for a fee of Le44,000,000 which is NLE 44,000 per annum.  We further observed that the work of the contracted Board Secretary was only limited to minutes taking whilst all other functions of the Board Secretary were undertaken by the CEO. Implication The work of the Board Secretary who is a consultant that is limited to the taking of minutes is no t commensurate to fees paid (Le 44,000,000.00) per annum and there is no value for money.

28. 27 Findings 6.5.1 Area of focus. Long Term Receivable The Review Team observed that Le 22,973,767,000 described as “Advance payment to Beton Villa (as per MOU) was being constantly recognized in the Administration’s financial statements from 2015 to 2021 (7 Years) as receivable. Implication Huge amounts being outstanding for such a long time in the books of a financial administrator that does not directly implement projects may indicate doubts about the recoverability or existence of such a debt. Recommendation Considering the amount and long time for which this money has been outstanding, we recommend tha t the existence of this amount in the books of accounts be reviewed, and appropriate action be taken. Management’s Response This has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance. 6.5.2 Area of focus: Receivable from Utility C ompanies The Review Team observed that a total of Le238,520,000 described as “Receivable from utility companies” has been outstanding since 2015 and that management had only sent a debt collection letter to these utility companies in June 2016 and the necessary action has not been taken to recover this amount. Implication A long outstanding debt may affect the cash flow of the institution and this may cripple developmental strives. Recommendation We recommend that the amount of Le238,520,000, which has been outstanding for over 7 years, be immediately collected by the Management of RMFA.

39. 38 Recommendation We recommend that all assets of the Administration including the 2 cameras and 3 Laptop Computers be appropriately coded to ensure clear identification with the Administration. Management’s Response The assets in question and all other assets of the Administration have been duly coded. 6. 1 1 . 3 Area of Focus: Asset Listing s Findings The review team observed that most of the offices do not have asset listing s at the back of their office doors , to identify the assets in those offices . Implication Assets can easily go missing without the knowledge of the Admin istrative Officer and the direct responsibility for those assets cannot be imposed o n the staff in those offices as they did not sign for them. Recommendation : We recommend that:  Ass e ts listings ar e prepared for all the various offices or rooms within the Administration.  At least one staff member in each of the offices sign on those listings to assign or claim responsibility for the protection and security of those assets.  The assets listing of each of the offices be pasted on the back of the respective office door.

64. 63 Recommendation We recommend that the Management of RMFA ensure there is an unambiguous signpost description of projects at the start and end points of all projects funded by RMFA. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. We want the Commission to note that we have been making constant strides to fix these anomalies and can assure the Commission further that all signposts after the review period were designed as specified by the Administration. 6.1 7 MAKENI CITY COUNCIL 6. 17. 1 Area of Focus : Construction of one (1) double box culvert, and one (1) single box culvert, spotting improvement along OIC Road (1.1km) and spotting improvement on Congo town (91.8km) in 2019 . The Project Cost was L e177 , 375 , 814,00 and the contractor was SULLAYIKIE CONSTRUCTION &GERERAL SERVICES Findings  The concrete mixture on both culverts was poor. Because the concrete at the top of both culverts was washed off, with granites and iron rods exposed.  The Council engineer indicated that it was because of the quantity mixture given to them (City Councils) a nd the district council. According to him (the Council engineer) the concrete was washed away by heavy traffic flow in the city, which is not the case in villages covered by District councils. The review team holds a different view, because , of all the towns and villages visited, it was only Makeni City Councils that stood out in terms of the poor concrete mixture on almost all its culverts and cross drains. Implication  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economic useful life of those culverts if not immediately re - enforced.

73. 72 were caused by heavy rains this ( 2022) year. But the Review Team was of the view that the r oot cause of the overflow was the poorly ( n arrowly) constructed wing walls that could not accommodate the heavy flow of water from the upper to the lower end of the channel during the rains. Implication If the wing walls are not immediately reconstructed t o always accommodate the full and free flow of water from the upper to the lower ends of the canal, erosion will continue to occur and may subsequently cut off both entrances of the culvert (bridge), thereby cutting off the villages to and after Matufli vi llage. Recommendation We recommend that RMFA facilitate the immediate reconstruction of the wing walls of that double culvert (Bridge) to always accommodate the free flow of water to mitigate the aforementioned risk Management’s Response We will engage the council on your recommendation. 6.18.5 BOMBALI DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.18.6 Area of Focus : Out of the Fifteen (15) RMFA - funded projects implemented by the Bombali District Council from 2019 - 2022, Nine (9) representing 60% were physically verified by the R eview T eam. Findings  All 9 (60%) of the projects (Culverts and Bridges) verified were robustly and properly constructed with high - quality concrete mixture and layout, thereby showing good value for money.  The wing walls on both sides of all the culverts (Single and double box culverts) were widely opened and allowed the free flow of water across.  Necessary and appropriate separation wall styles were used that allowed the free flow of water, debris, grass and sticks to flow across the canals.

30. 29  The D irector of Finance and Investments immediately facilitate s the correction of the unreconciled bank balances of Le 22,360,500.  Going forward the Director of Finance and Investment s should ensure the immediate correction ( w ithin two months) of any un - reconciled item between the cashbook and the bank statement. Management’s Response These items have been corrected. 6. 5.4 Are a of F ocus: Bank Reconciliation Statement V erification The R eview T eam observed that the B ank R econciliation S tatements (BRS) for the whole of 2021 to May 2022 were not signed by the Director of Finance as a means of verification to authenticate the correctness of the transactions in the bank statement. Implication Reconciliation errors committed by Junior Finance Officers may go undetected. For Instance, N L e945,000.00 indicated as "Amount payable to Frederick Bruce, Debited Twice by the bank in the BRS of October2021 was cleared in the November 2021 BRS though not c redited by the bank in October 2021. Recommendation We recommend that the Director of Finance and Investments immediately check and sign off all bank reconciliation statements from 2021 to date. Going forward, the Director of Finance and Investment should ensure that he checks and signs off all bank reconciliation statements before they are filed. Management’s Response Noted for appropriate action.

51. 50  Mr. Suabu Nabieu of 260 Queen Street, Rogbangban, Freetown bided Le55,000,000 and  Mr. John R. Taylor of 1 Pump Junction, Adonkia, God e rich, Freetown bided Le50,100,000 The vehicle was sold to Mr. John R. Taylor of 1 Pump Junction, Adonkia, Godrich, Freetown (The least responsive bidder) for Le 50 , 1 00,000 c iting that both the highest bidder for Le 60 ,000,000 and the second highest bidder for Le 55 ,000,000 “declined taking up the offers after they were contacted by the Road Maintenance Administration. However, letters of rejection of the offer examined by the review team also claimed to have been submitted by both the highest and second highest bidders but noted that the signatures on both letters are the same including the other characters. Implication This may imply that the letters of declined offer claimed to have come from the highest and second highest bidders, may have been generated internally to give undue advantage to the least responsive bidder, thereby selling the vehicle at Le 9 , 1 00,000 (60,000,000 – 5 0, 1 00,000) lower than its market v alue. Recommendation We recommend that the disposal of Vehicle Number A LU 513 be investigated by the Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC). Management’s Response  The first and second highest Bidders for the vehicle were contacted to pay the bids they submitted but they both declined.  The third highest Bidder was contacted after the first and second bidders sent us letters declining. The third highest bidder was re sponsive and paid the bid amount.

20. 19 Implication Frequent huge amounts o f cash in the hands of a public official can be easily misappropriated if not closely supervised and monitored by the Directorate of Finance and Investments. Not providing an invoice means you have not provided a request for the payment for your services. Recommendation It is recommended therefore that.  All payment s in respect of radio programs should be made based on the invoice to track both the invoice and t he receipts for proper accountability.  S equel to the above, all payments for radio programs should be made directly by the Finance department to the respective radio station s by ch e qu e and not to the Public Relations Manager.  The Internal Auditor of RMFA to investigate and report on the authen ti city of all expenditure s made towards Public Relations between 2019 – 2021. The report of the investigation should be made available to the ACC. Management’s Response Going forward, we will adhere to your recommendations in regard to invoicing and payments . Where there are deviations, we will ensure this is documented as to the reason(s) for such deviations. As per your recommendation, the Internal Audit Manager has been instructed to undertake a thorough investigation as to the authenticity of all expenditures relating to PR activities between 2019 - 2021. 6. 3 .2 Area of focus: Reports on Public Relations Activities Finding No report was made available to the R eview T eam in respect of P ublic Relations activities for which Daily Subsistence Allowance s (DSA) were paid to the Public

59. 58 Implicatio n The project can easily be claimed by any politically or financially exposed person l iving within that community at the expense of the council and RMFA in general . Recommendation: RMFA should ensure the immediate installation of signposts at the beginning and end of that project. Management’s Response We will act on the recommendation of the Commission. 6.1 5 PORTLOKO DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.15. 1 Area of Focus : Maintenance of Robins 2 to MA foray 2 Feeder Road and construction of Eight (8) Single Box Culverts and 1 Bridge at Robis2 Word 257,Koya Chiefdom in 2021 . The sum of Le 729,462,750 was spent on this project . Finding Seven (7) out of eight (8) culverts were verified by the review Team including the Bridge. Except for the following all seven single culvert s and one bridge were well - constructed and in good shape .  The culvert at the entrance point , from the Mas i aka - Port L oko Highways to Maforay 2 was not properly flushed to the highway; therefore the culvert was not usable by motor vehicles, motor bikes and people. As a result, the grass had taken over that entrance . Implication The purpose for which the culvert was constructed was not achieved as the culvert was not accessible.

69. 68 6.17. 6 Area of Focus : Construction of 2 single box culvert and 3 cross drain, ditching and spot improvement along Barracks/ Mena Hill in 2021 for a project price of Le 688.731750.00 and SULLAYIKIE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES was the contractor. Findings The team observed that the two (2) single box culvert and three (3) cross drain and spot improvement along Barracks Mena Hill does not reflect value for money as the concrete on the culverts was washed off and needs to be repaired. Implication  A lower stan dard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economically useful life of those two (2) single - box culverts and three (3) cross drains. Recommendation  Going forward, the Makeni City Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid (two (2) single boxes and three (3) cross drains) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action.

79. 78 that would promote connectivity and the movement of people and goods between Limba and Jawou communities . Recommendation We recommended that the Kenema District Council continues with the good work demonstrated on the construction of the 1.8 meters bridge and the 24 single box culverts on the 14.2 Km road between the Limba & Jawou communities. Management’s Response We note your recommendation. 6.21 . 2 Area of Focus : Maintenance of the 13.5 km Road and expansion of One (1) 6 meters bridge along Limba Junction - Gondama Feeder Road and Guara Chie fdom Kenema District. Voice of Lower Bambara Construction Service was the C ontractor. Findings  The 6 meters bridge along Limba Junction - Gondama Feeder Road and Guara Chiefdom Kenema District was appropriately expanded and reinforced, with a rich concrete mixture, and culvert heads. Implication The above findings showed that there was value for money in all works implemented by the Kenema District Council that were inspected by the review team. Recommendation  We recommend the continuation of such quality work by the Kenema District Council.  We also recommend that RMFA organizes a sharing and learning workshop ( Using Bombali and Kenema District Councils & any other council that may

10. 9 financial management policies, as well as making sure that the Administration has adequate resources to advance its purpose. 6.1.1 Area of Focus: Composition of the Board Finding Section 3 (1) (a - g) of the Roads Maintenance Act 2010 States that: “The governing body of the Administration shall be a Board of Directors consisting of a) The Chairman who has knowledge and experience in matters relating to the functions of the Administration. b) A representative of the Sierra Leone Institution of Engineers with knowledge and experience in road development, construction c) A representative of the Sierra Leone Institute of Chartered Accountants. d) The professional head of the Ministry is responsible for the work of his representative. e) A member of civil society. f) Two other persons with knowledge and experience in human resource management and administration at least one of whom shall be a woman. g) The Chief Executive Officer.” This, therefore, means that the Board should consist of Eight (8) members including the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Review Team observed from various Board Meeting Minutes that there were nine ( 9 ) Board Members in some meetings and ten ( 10 ) Board Members in some other meetings contrary to Section 3(1) (a - g) of the RMFA Act, 2010. Implication Having more than eight (8) members of the Board contradicts the Roads Maintenance Act 2010 and creates a financial burden on the Administration by adding one to two more Non - Executive Board members. This is contrary to the Mission statement of the Administration of “securing and managing the funds of

38. 37 6.1 1 ASSET MANAGEMENT 6.1 1 . 1 A rea of focus: Asset Movement Findings During the review, the team observed that there were items in some assets listings that were not in their respective offices and asset movement forms were not used to effectively track those assets. Implication The a sset could easily be personalized because there is no authorized document for the transfer. Recommendation Best practice requires that the asset movement form s be filled in and approved before any asset is move d from one office to the other. Management’s Response Since flagged by the I nternal Audit Manager , we have ensured all movements of assets are documented by way of the Asset Movement Forms. 6.1 1 . 2 Area of focus: Coding of Asset Findings The team observed that :  B oth cameras that were be i n g used by the P ublic R elation s Manager ( PRM) were not coded .  The Laptop Computers that were being used by the Chief E xecutive O fficer (CEO) , the Director of Administration , and the Director of Finance were also not coded . Implication These assets (The 2 Camera s and 3 Laptop computers) can be easily personalized .

72. 71 Recommendation We recommend that Earthwork/ Spot improvement projects be reduced to the barest minimum and closely monitored by RMFA, because though very expensive, most or all the spot improvements went bad again after a year thereby not achieving value for money on all ( Not just Tonkolili District Council ) of the spot improvement/earthwork projects undertook by the various Local Councils visi ted. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. We, however, have significantly reduced the number of earthwork projects we approve for funding as the long - term effects are not always felt. 6.18 .3 Area of Focus: Construction of One (1) reinforced concrete bridge and Two (2 ) Single box culverts by Nanefinoh Construction & General Service in 2021. Findings The bridge was of a good standard. The concrete mixture was rich and of a high standard, and the gu ardrails on both sides were of good quality. The wing walls and separation walls on both sides were wildly opened and allowed the free flow of water. 6.18. 4 Area of Focus: Construction of one double box culvert (Bridg e ) between Massenneh Junction to Matufli village in 2021 by AB &B Construction and General. Findings  Though the culvert (bridge) itself was robustly constructed, the wing walls on both entrances of the culvert (bridge) were not wildly opened, thereby causing water to overflow on both entrances of the bridge that have led to both entrances of the bridge to be badly eroded.  According to the community peoplethe review team engaged with during the field verification exercise, the overflow and the erosion on the bridge

47. 46  Five (5) motor vehicles , ALU 515, AJP 258, ALU 513, AIB 329, and AIB 331 and One (1) motor bike ALG 941 were disposed - off by RMFA between 2019 to 2022 without the establishment/creation of a Board of Survey contrary to sectio n 66 (1) of the Public Procurement Act, 2016 .  Since a Board of Survey was not established, the disposal method used was not recommended by a Bo a rd of Survey contrary to Section 66 (2) of the National Procurement Act, 2016.  The aforesaid 5 Motor vehicles and 1 motor bike were disposed - off without recurring to the National Asset Commission contrary to section 3(5) of the National Assets Commission Act,2000 Implication All the above actions contrave ned the provisions of the relevant section of the cited Acts. That meant laws, regulations and guidance related to the disposal of government properties were not followed by the Management of RMFA. This noncompliance with Laws and Regulations may have crea ted room for corruption in the disposals process. Recommendation We recommend that going forward, before the disposal of any government property, unserviceable, obsolete, or surplus stores, plant, equipment, and vehicles :  A Board of the survey should be established by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with clear terms of reference in line with Section 66(1) of the Public Procurement Act, 2016.  A list of all government properties, unserviceable , obsolete, or surplus stores, plants , equipment, and vehicles identified for disposal should be referred to the National Asset Commission for inspection, approval or otherwise.  A list of motor vehicles and motor bikes identified for disposal should be referred to the Road Safety Authority (RSA ) for physical inspection, technical advice, and determination of reserved price .

33. 32 Implication Documents can be removed from Personnel Files or go missing or misplace d without be ing easily identified. Recommendation We recommend that the Human Resource Officer immediately:  Index all personnel files .  Serially number all document s in each personnel file. Management’s Response All employee files are indexed with a special ID number system. All employees have RMFA ID number which applies to their personnel files. This ID number is unique, and it has serial numbering. The issue of personnel files documents not serially numbered has been identified before now b ut since the Administration was working on an electronic filing system, the serial numbering for each document will be done simultaneously – both the hard and scanned copies. This will be done in the 1 st quarter of 2023. 6. 7 .0 FLEET MANAGEMENT 6. 7 .1 Area of focus: Motor Vehicle Ownership We observed that .  The Life Card (LC) of a Motor vehicle with registration number ASV 162 procured in 2021 for Le480,000,000 and being used by RMFA was in the name of Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA) .  The Life Cards for Vehicles with registration number RMF 001 procured in 202 2 being used by the CEO , RMF 003 Procured in 2021 and ATP 232 procured in 2019 w ere not made available to the review t eam for an examination.

21. 20 Relations Manager. The table above in p age 17 shows examples of such activities. Implication  Without a written report for the implementation of an activity, there will be no evidence of the utilization of funds meant for that activity and a recipe for corruption.  T he non - reporting of Public Relations (PR) activities may also deprive the Administration of leaning on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the PR activities of the administration. Recommendation  We recommend that going forward; reports should be submitted and filled in on all public relations activities.  The Internal Auditor of RMFA to further investigate the activities and recommend administrative sanctions. Management’s Response We shall ensure that the PR Manager submits reports on all PR activities henceforth. The Internal Audit Manager has been instructed to undertake an investigation into your observation. Sanctions will be levied where necessary. 6.3.3 Area of focus: Installations of Billboards Finding There are only six (6) billboards constructed and installed in Five (5) districts by the Administration, two (2) in Western Area, one (1) in Western Urban Rural, one (1) in Bo, one (1) in Port Loko, and one (1) in Kenema D istrict. The remaining eight (8) districts do not have billboards, even though the Administration funds road maintenance in those districts.

3. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ............ 5 3.0 OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ..................... 6 4.0 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ............................ 7 5.0 METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .............. 8 6.0 FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ............... 8 6.1 BOARD MEMBERS ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 6.2.0 EXECUTIVE BOARD ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 6.3.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ .. 17 6.4.0 INTERNAL AUDIT ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 6.7.0 FLEET MANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 6.8.0 FUEL MANAGEMENT. ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 6.9.0 OFFICE RENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 6.10 DIRECTORATE OF PLANNING TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................ ................................ .............................. 36 6.13 PROCUR EMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 41 6.14.1 WESTERN URBAN & WESTERN RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ .... 53 6.15 PORTLOKO DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ .............. 58 6.16.1 KAMBIA DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ .................. 60 6.17 MAKENI CITY COUNCIL ................................ ................................ .......................... 63 6.18 TONKOLILI DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ ............. 69 6.18.5 BOMBALI DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ ................ 72 6.19 BO DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ .......................... 73 6.20 PUJEHUN DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ ................ 75 6.21 KENEMA DISTRICT COUNCIL ................................ ................................ ................. 77

78. 77  Though the bridge was b eing used by motor vehicles and motorbikes, the exit point of the bridge was not properly backfilled. Implication The poorly backfilled exit point was negatively affecting the smooth exiting and entering of the bridge. Recommendation We recommend that RMFA and the Pujehun district Councils immediately collaborate efforts to ensure that the contractor properly backfilled the exit end of the Pawa - Nyama bridge in Jimmi. Management’s Response Noted for appropriate action. 6.21 .0 KENEMA DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.21. 1 Area of Focus: Construction of One (1) 1. 8 meters bridge and Twenty - four (24) single Box culverts along Limba Junction to Gondama road (14.2km), constructed by Assil Trading and Construction Findings  The bridge was properly constructed with a rich concrete mixture, robust guard rails, and properly positioned wing walls. The bridge was of a high standard, properly backfilled and intact. There were signposts at the start and end points of the 14.2 Km Roa d .  All 24 culverts were properly constructed and in good shape.  Two (2 ) additional culverts were required between Limba & Jawou roads. Implication The 1.8 meters bridge and the 24 single box culverts constructed between the 14.2 Km Road between Limba & Jawou communities showed value for money

25. 24 Finding Section 2.2 of the RMFA Internal Audit Charter “ Role of Internal Audit ” states: “...........The Internal Audit activity responsibilities are defined by the Board as part of the oversight role” The Review Team observed that the Internal Audit Annual Plans for 2019, 2020 and 2021 were all approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) instead of the Chairman of the Audit Committee. Implication This, therefore, means that the Internal Audit scopes for 2019 – 2021 were defined by the CEO contrary to the Administration’s Internal Audit Charter and best practice. Recommendation Going forward, the Internal Audit Plan should be scrutinized and discussed by the Audit Committee and approved by the Chairma n of the Audit Committee. Management’s Response Noted for action. 6.4.3 Area of focus: Staff strength Finding Currently, there is only one staff attached to the Internal Audit Unit (The Internal Audit Manager) who as per work plan (appropriately enough)was to travel every quarter to audit road maintenance activities and other related matters with SLRA and the Local Councils for a period of between Eight (8) to Ten (10) days, in appropriately leaving the office without an Auditor. Implication  This will negatively impact the scope and performance of the Internal Audit function. For instance in the three years under review 2019 – 2021 the

31. 30 6. 6 .0 HUMAN RESOURCE ( HR) MANAGEMENT The Human R esource Department is responsible for hiring , deploying , retaining, and managing an organization's employees. H uman R esource M anagement (HRM) is often referred to simply as Human R esources ( HR ). A company or organization's HR d epartment is usually responsible for creating, putting into effect, and overseeing policies governing workers and the relationship of the organization with its employees. One key role of HR is ensuring fair pay to all employees . 6. 6 .1 Area of focus: Salary Structure Findings Though there is an approved salary structure in the Administration, staff is not place d into specific grades. For example , Grade 5(1), Grade 9(3), Grade 10(4). Thus except for the drivers, salaries paid to all other staff d o not fall within a specific notch of the salary structure. Implication Thi s may introduce subjectivity and unfair salary payment that may res ult in resentment and demotiva ti on among staff . Recommendation We recommend that the Director of Administration and Corporate A ffairs ensures that:  Staff are pu t into specific grades .  That salaries are paid to staff based on the specific grade and which they fall  Going forward, newly recruited staff are placed on specific entry grades for a position, which will also determine their pay. Management’s Response  All staff are placed in notches according to the RMFA paygrade structure.  Note that we do not have grades but positions/titles.

36. 35 Management’s Response We n ote your recommendation . 6. 9 .0 OFFICE RENT 6. 9 .1 Area of Focus: Office Rent We observed that RMFA has been paying an annual rent of $70,000 for the office space of about 35 staff to Sierra Leone Maritime Administration (SLMA) another government al agency from 2015 to 2019. We also observed that amount was renegotiated by the current CEO in 2020 when he took over office as CEO of RMFA to Le600,000,000 . Whi l st we appreciate and commend the effort of the current CEO in renegotiating the amount to a l ower amount and in local currency resulting in huge savings and stability in the cash flow (N o t affected by the exchange rate). However, the amount is still high considering the financial commitment in funding road maintenance . Implication This may negatively affect the A dministration ’s financial ability to fund road maintenance project s (The purpose for which the A dministration was established). Recommendation  We recommend that the CEO further negotiate the rent to a reasonable amount since the Maritime Building is government owned.  Alternatively , the CEO should lobby with the Asset Commission for an office. Management’s Response The Administration is in dialogue with the Asset Commission for an office space. A couple of locations have been touted and management is evaluating these prospects. Alternatively, plans are underway to rent an office space that might cost less to what the Administration is paying now.

76. 75  RMFA and the Bo District Council to collaborate efforts in ensuring the water just after the exit of the bridge towards the Bo stadium end be diverted to facilitate the usability of the bridge by motor vehicles and motor bikes. Management’s Response Your recommendations are noted for action . 6.19. 2 Area of Focus: Clearing Work, Earth Work & Construction of One (1) Twin Box Culvert & Three (3) Single box culverts, located between Yamandu and Komende communities. Contractor - Dakab Construction & Engineering Service . Findings All those culverts were properly constructed, in good form, effectively utilized and showed value for money. Recommendation We recommended that Bo District Council continues with the good work demonstrated on the construction of the One (1) Twin Box Culvert & Three (3 ) Single box culverts, located between the Yamandu and Komende communities. Management’s Response We note your recommendation. 6.20 PUJEHUN DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.20. 1 Area of Focus: Maintenance of an 8.3km Feeder Road & Construction of 6 meters bridges along Futta Pejeh Junction to Vawahun V illage in Pejeh & Sowa Chiefdom in 2021 . CAISEY ENT CONSTRUCTION was the contractor Findings The bridge was properly constructed, with a rich concrete mixture, a properly positioned wing wall that allowed a smooth flow of water and solid and intact guard rails that showed value for money.

61. 60 6.16.1 KAMBIA DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.16.2 Area of Focus : Feeder roads maintenance in 2021 . T h at lot comprised three projects Sp ot improvement and construction of (4) single Box culve rt s . A total of Le 875,260.050. 000 was spent on this lot. Findings  All four (4) culverts were properly construc ted. They were in good shape and effectively utilized .  The signposts at the beginning and end points of the project lacked a proper description of the project . Implication Lack of proper project description may result in the c ommunity people or visitors not being aware of the deliverables of the project, thus being unable to scrutinize contractors or the local council on the deliverables of the project. Recommendation We recommend that the Management of RMFA ensures there is an unambiguous signpost description of projects at the start and end points of all projects funded by RMFA. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. We want the Commission to note that we have been making constant strides to fix these anomalies and can assure the Commission further that all signposts after the review period were designed as specified by the Administration. 6.1 6.3 Area of foc us : Feeder Roads Maintenance in 2021. That consisted of the construction of two ( 2 ) single - box culverts along Hospital Road to Komra bai Dura Road (1.8km) in Kambia Town Contracto r: Findin gs  The 2 culverts we re properly constructed and utilized .

60. 59 Recommendation s  RMFA to facilitate the immediate proper flushing and backfilling of the aforesaid culvert to the main highway by the Port Loko District Council.  RMFA to immediately facilitate the provision of evidence of the existence of all the 8 culverts in this project instead of the 7 culverts verified. Management’s Response Recommendation 1 is noted. Council will be informed accordingly for adherence. On recommendation 2, we can confirm that you probably missed your count. There were 8 culverts as per project. 6.15. 2 Area of Focus : Maintenance of Feeder Road & the Construction of (9) Single Box Culverts along Makan kare to Makabia (4.5km) in Koya Chiefdom the sum of 613,119,000 was spent o n this project as stated in Documents . Findings  A ll Nine (9) single - box culverts were neatly constructed , in good shape and fully utilized.  Both Sign posts at the start and the end of the project had fall endue to accidents, caused by either bike riders or vehicle s . Implication C ommunity people or visitors may lack proper knowledge about these projects , and by whom they were funded. Recommendation We recommend that the engineer should ensure they give a proper description of the project on the signpost and on the constructed culvert as RMFA is not the only institution funding road projects in the country. Management’s Response Noted for action in subsequent projects.

65. 64 Recommendation We recommend that:  Going forward, the Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices close ly supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the a foresaid (2) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action. 6.1 7 .2 Area of Focus: Spot improvement, ditching of 2 twin Box culverts and 3 single box culverts at Garda Street in 2021 costing of L e638,703,884.00. Fin dings  The concrete mixture on both the twin box culvert and the three (3) single box culverts was poor. Because the concrete on all of them was washed off, with granite and iron rods exposed.  The Council engineer indicated that it was because of the quantity mixture given to them (City Councils) as the district council. According to him (the Council engineer) the concrete was washed away by heavy traffic flow in the city, which is not the case in villages covered by District councils. The review team holds a differen t view, because of all the towns and villages visited, it was only Makeni City Councils that stood out in terms of the poor concrete mixture. Implication:  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economic useful life of those culverts if not immediately re - enforced.

50. 49 selling the vehicle for Le 22,000,000 (52,000,000 – 30,000,000) l ower than its market value. Recommendation We recommend that the disposal of Vehicle Number AIB 331 be investigated by the Anti - Corruption Commission (ACC). Management’s Response  The first and second highest Bidders for the vehicle were contacted to pay the bids they submitted but they both declined.  The third highest Bidder was contacted after the first and second bidders sent us letters declining. The third highest bidder was responsive and paid the bid amount.  The Administration has no control over bidders declining to pay their bid prices. As an A dministration we did what was required of us, contacting the first and second bidders to pay their bid prices. We frown at the ACC’s suggestion/theory that Decline Letters from the 1 st and 2 nd bidders were generated internally. Note: Records and reports of the disposal processes including letters of bidders declining their bids, receipt of payment made by the third bidder and transfer of ownership from RMFA to responsive bidder are all available for inspection. The review team also observed that motor vehicle ALU 513 was also disposed of in 2022 at a price of at least Le9,900,000 below its market value t hrough similar process as in the 6.13. 4 According to the records examined three people bided for the vehicle as follows:  Mr. Mohammed A. Salisu at 6 Barrie Drive, New York, Freetown bided Le60,000,000

4. 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACC A nti - Corruption Commission BRS Bank Reconciliation Statement AWP Annual Work Plan CEO Chief Executive Officer GoSL Government of Sierra Leone MDA Ministries Departments and Agencies HRM Human Resource Management SLRA Sierra Leone Roads Authority SLMA Sierra Leone Maritime Administration SLRSA Sierra Leone Roads Safety Authority RMFA Roads Maintenance Fund Administration RUC Road User Charges VLRF Vehicl e Licenses and R egistration Scan this QR Code to go the ACC Website

41. 40 6.1 2 .2 Area of Focus: Store Receive d Note/ Stores Ledger Findings  Fix ed assets (Furniture, fittings, and Equipment) procured by the Administration were not taken on charge before being distributed to the user.  Distribution lists in respect of all fixed assets (Furniture, fittings, and Equipment) procured and distributed by the Administration in the period under review (2019 – 2021) were not made available. Implication  The Administration may lose track of assets purchased which can also lead to theft .  It is possible that the assets purchased may be diverted to personal use. Recommendation We recommend that going forward .  All furniture, fittings, and equipment purchased by the Administration be taken on charge before distributing them to the end users.  Distribution lists in respect of all fixed assets (Furniture, fittings, and Equipment) procured and distributed by the Administration be prepared and filed. Management’s Response Your recommendations are noted for appropriate action. 6.1 2 .3 Area of Focus: Requisition Note Findings The team observed that some stores items were issued out and recorded on the stores ' ledger, but the Store' s Requisition Vouchers that approved those stores ' issues were not made available to the review team.

56. 55 except for a few vehicle s ' hilts on the gu ard s. That work show ed value for money . ( c) The Review team observed that about 70% of the Installed pedestrian guardrails at the entrance of Waterloo junction to the market on both sides were damaged and needed urgent replacement. About 30% of the installed guard rails had been cut off by unknown people. The Installed Pedestrian guardrails at Tombo – Kent Road were still intact. Implication There is a high risk of an accident occurring at the highly overcrowded Waterloo – Tombo junction if the situation remains the same because pedestrian s now walk on the street amid plying vehicles as most of the guard rails have been damaged and some removed. Recommendation:  RMFA should facilitate the replacement of the damaged and removed guard rails at the Waterloo - Tombo Junction.  RMFA to ensure that SLRA undertake awareness programs to sensitize the public on the benefit of guard rails , especially on the Waterloo – Tombo Junction.  RMFA to conduct periodic (Quarterly) monitoring o f completed projects or program s to ascertain their status, condition, uses and benefits. Management’s Response The recommendations of the ACC are noted for appropriate action where necessary. We want the Commission to note that our primary function is to provide funding for these projects. Once they are completed, the responsibility of enhancing the asset should rest on SLRA.

77. 76 Recommendation We recommended that the Pujehun District Council continues with the good work demonstrated on the construction of the 6 meters bridges along Futta Pejeh Junction to Vawahun village in Pejeh & Sowa Chiefdom in 2021 . Management’s Response We note your recommendation. 6.20 .2 Area of Focus: The C onstruction of S ingle B ox C ulverts from Niagorehun to Dandabu along Sowa Chiefdom 13.2 killo M eter R oad . Findings All single - box culverts constructed were up to standard and in good shape. Both side walls of these culverts were covered by bushes Implication This can lead to blockages under these culverts that may cause silt and potholes on the culverts Recommendation We recommend that the Pujehun District Council engages with Local authorities/councilors to clean those culverts to mitigate the above risk. Management’s Response We will convey the concerns of the Commission and ensure council acts accordingly. 6.20 .3 Area of Focus: Construction of Bridge in Pawa - Nyama. Zimmie Town. Findings  The bridge was properly constructed, with a rich concrete mixture, a properly positioned wing wall that allowed a smooth flow of water and solid and intact guard rails that showed value for money.

70. 69 6.17. 7 Area of Focus: Maintenance and Construction of One. (1) twin box culvert along Yikis Feeder Road (0.85km) and maintenance and construction of One (1), single box culvert along Solder Street (0.7km) in 2020 with a total project price of Le231,620,000.00 Findings The concrete on the one (1) Twin box culvert along Yikis feeder road and the single box culvert on S old i er S treet were all washed off. That project does not reflect value for money and needs urgent maintenance. Implication  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economic useful life of those culverts. Recommendation  Going forward, the Makeni City Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid (two (2) single boxes and three (3) cross drains) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action. 6.18 .0 TONKOLILI DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.18. 1 Area of Focus: Construction of Two (2) single box culverts and a bridge at Rongolleh to Barragnin in 2021 for a total contract price of Le1,336,386,350.00 Findings  Both the single box culverts were not properly backfilled

74. 73  All the culverts and bridges were properly backfilled, thereby promoting smooth entering and exiting of the bridges and culverts.  The review team was very much impressed with the works implemented by the Bombali District Council. This council stood out positi vely in terms of good quality works and layout among all the district councils visited. Implication The above findings showed that there was value for money in all works implemented by the Bombali District Council and that was inspected by the review team . Recommendation  We recommend the continuation of such quality work by the Bombali District Council.  We also recommend that RMFA organizes a sharing and learning workshop (Using Bombali District Council & any other council that may have stood out using RM FA data as examples), where all 22 District Council’s Chief Administrators, engineers, Monitoring and Evaluation Officers and Internal Auditors will share knowledge and experience on the quality of their works. Management’s Response We note your recommendation. 6.19.0 BO DISTRICT COUNCIL 6.19 .1 Area of Focus: Construction of One (1 ) 8 Meters Double S pan Bridge & Two (2 ) single Box Culverts in 2021. This was labelled as a “Special Request P roject” in Kaindeyama Town Kakua Chiefdom. Lamsal Enterprise was the C ontractor . Findings  Though the bridge itself was robustly constructed with a rich concrete mixture, solid guard rails and appropriate wing walls, the main road (Way)

67. 66  Going forward, the Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of cross drains and cross drains.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council should ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid cross drains.  RMFA should ensure the immediate inst allation of signposts at the beginning and end of that project . Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action. 6.1 7 .4 Area of Focus: Construction of three (3) twin box culverts, four (4) single box culverts, ditch, and spot improvement along PM Drive in 2021 costing Le 139.635,580.00. The Contractor was ALIGFATU SUPPLIES & GENERAL CONSTRUCTION Finding s  The concrete mixture on all three (3) twin box culverts & four (4) single box culverts was poor because the concrete on both was washed off, with granite and iron rods exposed. Implication  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economically useful life of those three (3) twin - box culverts and four (4) singl e - box culverts. Recommendation We recommend that:  Going forward, the Makeni City Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.

68. 67  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid (three (3) twins’ box and four (4) single box) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action. 6.17 .5 Area of Focus : Construction of seven (7) box culverts and spotting improvement along Makama Road (1.145m) and Arabic C ollege R oad (1.8km) in 2019 for a contract of 298,519,107.50 Finding The team observed that all seven (7) single - box culverts and the stop improvement did not reflect value for money as the concrete on the culverts was all washed out and needs to be repaired. Implication  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economically useful life of those Seven (7) single - box culverts. Recommendation  Going forward, the Makeni City Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate re - enforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid (three (3) twin s box and four (4) single box) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action.

66. 65 Recommendation We recommend that:  Going forward, the Council Engineer, RMFA Engineers, and RMFA Monitoring, and Evaluation offices closely supervise and monitor the concrete mixture of specifically the Makeni City Council to ensure that the standard mixture is used in the construction of culverts.  RMFA and the Makeni City Council ensure the immediate reinforcement of the concrete on the aforesaid (both the twin box culvert and the three (3) single box) culverts. Management’s Response Recommendations are noted for action. 6.1 7 .3 Area of Focus: Maintenance and construction of two (2) cross drains and one (1) single box culvert along Ropolon (1.7km) in 2020. The project cost Le170,453,000.00 and the contractor was SULLAYIKIE CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL SERVICES Findings  The team observed that the single - box culverts were remarkably done.  The concrete mixture on both the cross drains was poor because the concrete on both was washed off, with granite and iron rods exposed.  Signposts were not erected at the start and end points of that project. Implication  A lower standard mixture may have been used by the contractor.  That poor concrete mixture may deplete the economic useful life of those cross drains immediately re - enforced.  The project can easily be claimed by any politically or financially exposed perso n leaving within that city Recommendation We recommend that:

7. 6  R oad maintenance projects implemented by SLRA and the 22 Local Councils, to which such huge amounts have been disbursed by RMFA, may have not been done to reflect value for money .  To ascertain whether RMFA is robust in its oversight role in the monitoring o f road maintenance projects. 3.0 OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW The main aim of the review was to examine and identify weaknesses in the R MFA and its projects that may give rise to corruption opportunities and make recommendations . Also, t o ensure effective and efficient use of resources meant for road maintenance in Sierra Leone. The objectives were as follows :  To examine the administrative systems including structures and processes in place at RMFA .  T o identify weaknesses t hat may give rise to corruption opportunities.  To review the organizational structure to determine how the functions and responsibilit ies of the various U nits relate to the achievement of the mandate and vision of the A dministration.  To examine the effectiveness of the oversight activities of RMFA in the implementation of road maintenance programs and projects by implementing partners (SLRA and the 22 Local Councils) .  T o ensure that oversight activities are robust enough to prevent cor ruption.  To examine the Administration’s effe ctive ness in revenue generation meant for the maintenance of roads in Sierra Leone .  To examine the effectiveness of the systems and procedures in place at RMFA meant to protect the A dministration ’ s assets.  To p hysically inspect road maintenance programs and projects implemented by SLRA and the 22 Local Councils, to which such huge amounts have been disbursed by RMFA to confirm that such programs and projects were executed as planned and reflect value for money . .

23. 22 Number of Staff 1 1 1 1 Implication This may negatively affect the Administration’s financial ability to fund road maintenance projects (The purpose for which the Administration was established). Recommendation We recommend that Public Relations’ cost be strongly controlled by reducing it to not more than Le200,000,000 per annum in the next three years commencing in 2023. Management’s Response Your recommendation is noted. However, please note that there are activities like the production of calendars, diaries, T - Shirts and caps that are charged to the PR department. 6.4.0 INTERNAL AUDIT Internal Audit is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity that is guided by a philosophy of adding value to improve the operations of an organization. At RMFA, the Internal Audit Unit should assist in accomplishing the Organization’s objectives through a systematic and disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the Administration’s governance, risk and internal control. 6.4.1 Area of focus: Audit Quarries Register Finding Section 6 of the RMFA Internal Audit Charter “ Reporting & Monitoring ” states: “...... .... All significant findings will remain in an open issues file until resolved. ”

9. 8 documented, communicated and approved by RMFA (the sponsor) and the Management of the Local Councils (Project Management Board). 5. 0 METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW  The M ethodology of the review included both qualitative and quantitative research.  Inception meeting with the M anagement of the RMFA  Interview key stakeholders with the desire d information  Examination of Documents relating to the review  Observation of the process of utilization for the project implemented from funds disbursed by the Adm inistration.  Analysis of report s including financial statements , Internal and External A udit R eports and RMFA A nnual R eports  Production of the draft report  Validation of report  Production and Presentation of the final report . 6.0 FINDINGS , IMPLICATION S AND RECOMMENDATION S In summary, d ocuments reviewe d and project sites visited indicated that there ha ve been between 2019 – 2021 (The period under review), gradual improvement in the management of all the systems highlighted above and all the observed improvements geared towards preventing corruption and improving service delivery. There are, however, room for improvement in the following areas mentioned below: 6.1 BOARD MEMBERS Board members are the fiduciaries who steer the organization towards a sustainable future by adopting sound, ethical, and legal governance, and

17. 16 Management’s Response We will take the necessary steps to regularize this. 6.2.0 EXECUTIVE BOARD 6.2.1 Area of Focus: Appointment of Other Executive Directors The Executive Board member s provide the day - to - day strategic leadership of an organization. The RMFA ha s Four (4) E xecutive Board Members. These were :  The Chief Executive Officer  Th e Deputy Chief E xecutive Office r  Director of Finance and Investments,  Director of Planning, Technical Compliance, Monitoring, and V aluation  Director of Administration and Corporate Service. The R eview T eam observed that except for the Director o f Administration and Corporate Service, all the other four Board members were external P residential nominees. Implication Whilst this does not contravene any law, but:  It may weaken the Authority of the CEO and his D eputy over the D irectors, due to the “ consciousness ” of all D irectors that they were equally appointed by the President just as the CEO and the Deputy CEO.  It m ay deprive the A dministration of institutional knowledge at the strategic level because it impedes internal staff growth to the Director’s level. This may also deplete the middle - level M anager’s motivation and subsequent performance , knowing that they cannot grow above their current level no matter what their performance . Recommendation We recommend that the N on - E xecutive D irectors, the Chief Executive Officer ( CEO) and the Deputy Chief Executive Officer Who must all be Presidential

52. 51  The Administration has no control over bidders declining to pay their bid prices. As an Administration we did what was required of us, contacting the first and second bidders to pay their bid prices. We frown at the ACC’s suggestion/theory that Decline Letters from the 1 st and 2 nd bidders were generated internally. Note: Records and reports of the disposal processes including letters of bidders declining their bids, receipt of payment made by the third bidder and transfer of ownership from RMFA to responsive bidder are all available for inspection. The review team again observed that a motor vehicle ( 2014 model Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep) with registration number AJP 258 that was procured by RMFA in May 2014 for Le166,900,000 was unreasonably disposed of for Le55,000,000 even when the Government vehicle experts , the Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority advised that the vehicle was in good shape as :  The engine performance was satisfactory as components that constituted the smooth running of the engine were intact and fully functional.  The (Electrical System) head and fog lamps, break and reverse lamps were all functional  The (Steering System) linkages like steering arms, tie rod, tracks rod and knuckles arms that connected the steering wheel were intact.  The (Under Carriage) shock absorbers, leaf springs and exhaust systems were intact and free from corrosion.  The gear system (Transmission System) was operational.  The tyres were in good running order.  The upholstery was fairly maintained.  Scratches with a slight dent on the bonnet and faded paintwork w ere observed.  The brake system required services to have made it effective.

8. 7  To present a report and proffer recommendations to serve as a working document for the Administration. 4.0 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW The scope of the review was for three (3) years cover ing 2019 - 2021 . The review covered the administrative aspect of RMFA at the head office in Freetown including:  The Board Structure and i t s effectiveness  Strategic Plan  The Organizational Structure of RMFA  Annual Work Plan  Allocation and utilization of Budget.  Financial Management  Procurement Management  Fleet and Fuel Management  Office Rent  Stores Manage ment  Human R esource Management  Internal and External Audits  Public Relations Management  The Office of the Chief Administration Management  The Administrative a spect of the Project is funded by RMFA . And  Planning, Technical Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation The review also covered the physical verification of a sample of 2019 – 2021 RMFA Funded projects implemented by SLRA and 9 Local Councils in 8 Districts, namely , Western Area Rural, Port Loko, Kambia, Bombali, Tonkolili, Bo, Ke nema, Pujehun Districts and Makeni City C ouncils to confirm that projects were delivered as spe c ified or that any modifications were properly

12. 11 Recommendation The Service of the Board Secretary Cohort Consultancy should be immediately terminated and be handled internally . Alternatively, its function to be expanded to include collecting and analyzing data and reporting to the Board on the implementation of Board resolutions. Management’s Response The recommendations are noted. However, it is imperative that the task of recording minutes is not put in the hands of someone directly involved in the day - to - day running of the Administration . Additionally, at the validation meeting, we informed the Commission that we were exploring the possibility of interweaving the role of the Board Secretariat with that of th e legal retainers. This has been done and minutes of last Board meeting held in January 2023 were taken by representatives from our legal retainers. 6.1.3 Area of Focus: Allowances to the Board Chairman Finding The Board Chairman (Non - Executive Director) receives a Monthly Transport Allowance of Le2,500,000, Fuel of 60 Liters/week, that is 240 Liters per month, and an official vehicle with registration number, RMF 008 assigned to him which is also fuel by the Administration. A total Maintenance C ost of Le 114,671,083.05, that is, NLE114,671.083 has been spent on this vehicle from 2020 – 2022 as below. 2 and ½ Year Maintenance Cost of Vehicle No. RMF 008 Year Month Cost 2020 Jan – December 40,987,036.09 2021 Jan – December 31,628,498.96 2022 Jan – June 42,055,548.00 114,671,083.05

24. 23 The Review Team observed that the Internal Audit Manager does not maintain an Audit Query Register that could easily track unresolved audit issues overtime. The Internal Auditor however capture s unresolved issues and issues being resolved in his various I nternal Audit Reports Implication Without an Audit Query Register, the Internal Audit Manager may easily lose sight of recommendations not fully implemented by various departments over a long period as this may require going through all the Internal Audi t Report to identify unresolved issues. Recommendation The Internal Audit Manager to develop an Audit Query Register with columns including but not limited to: Year, Period of Audit, Observation, Recommendation and Status. For example. Management’s Response Your recommendation will be acted upon. Year Audit Period Department Observation Recommendation Status Color Code 2019 1sr Quarter Finance & Investment A total of four transactions totaling Le 45,000,000.00 were erroneously debited in the Administration’s account with SLCB. We recommend that the Director of finance facilitate the correction of this error. The Director of finance has sent a letter to the bank authorities and the errors have been corrected 2020 3rd Quarter Administration The framework contract for the supply of printer cartridges between RMFA and Qumran International expired 30 th Jjune, 2020. It is recommended that all contracts be reviewed and perfected. This issue remains unresolved. 6.4.2 Area of focus: Internal Audit Plan

58. 57  The cost of the bridge seems very high, as compared to another project within the same year and dimension. Example  Only the right - side of the bridge had drainage. The left side had no drainage facility. Project District Council Contractor Year Amount(Le) Construction of 10 Meters bridge along During Street in Waterloo Western Area Rural District Council (WARD) Sam Construction General Merchandise 20201 487,500,000.00 Construction of 10 meters of the reinforced concrete brid g e along the Konta – Rofothaneh feeder road Bombali District Council Team of Three 2021 321,395,000.00 Difference 166,105.00 Implication Erosion has started eating up the left side of the bridge; this will lead to disasters if not immediately amended. Recommendation RMFA should ensure that WARDC constructs drainage on the left side of the bridge to expand and prolong the economic ally useful life of the bridge. Management’s Response We will engage the council on your recommendation subject to availability of fund. 6.1 4 . 5 Area of Focus: R epair/Maintenance of concrete pavement along Nelson Lan e , off O ld R ailway L ine, Tengbeh Town/ GINA FINE ENTERPRISE i mplemented by SLRA. RMFA to develop standard cost s for works with similar dimensions. Findings  No project signpost was found within the area.  The project was of high quality, as it falls within the benchmarks set by the Review team.

22. 21 Implication Due to lack of visibility, the residents in the remaining Nine (9) districts may lack the proper aw areness about the work of RMFA in their respective districts though the Administration is heavily funding road maintenance projects in those districts. Recommendation The Administration should ensure the immediate installation of billboards in strategic locations in the remaining nine (9) districts to promote awareness of the work of the Administration in those districts. Management’s Response The installation of billboards was to be done in phases, in view of controlling cost. We are in the process of installing a further four billboards in 2023. The others will be done as and when the cash flow burden of the Administration eases. 6.3.4 Area of focus: Cost - eff ectiveness on Public Relations Activities Finding T he Review Team observed that the Public Relations Activities’ cost with only one staff was very high and uncontrolled over the period under review (2019 - 2021). Find below the PR Cost analysis for three years in the table below. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS COST Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 3 Yrs Tota l Denomination (Le) (Le) (Le) (Le) 2019 - 2021 Annual Total Expenditure 20,555,000.00 590,362,000.00 316,850,302.00 466,849,832.20 1,374,062,134.20 Absolute Chang (Le) 569,807,000.00 (273,511,698.00) 149,999,530.20 446,294,832.20 %Change 96.52% - 86.32% 32.13% 42.33%

19. 18 Sample of Public Relations Radio Programmes No Date Payment Voucher # Cheque No Cheque Name Payment Details Total Amount Invoice Receipt 1 23/12/2019 1438 132990 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots/90 days/ 15,000 per slot in Freetown,Bo,Kenema,Make ni , Portloko, and Kono Respectively) 48,600,000.00 No Yes 2 12/09/2019 1037 121953 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots in 2 stations /90 days/ 25,000 per slot in Moyamba,Bonth,Pujhun,Kai lahun,Tonkolili,Falaba,Koin adugu,Karene,Kambia,Wat erloo 45,000,000.00 No Yes 3 12/09/2019 1038 121954 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots in 2 stations /90 days/ 25,000 per slot in Moyamba,Bonth,Pujhun,Kai lahun,Tonkolili,Falaba,Koin adugu,Karene,Kambia,Wat erloo 45,000,000.00 No Yes 4 05/09/2019 1018 121939 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots in in the regions in nglish,Krio and Local Languages 40,000,000.00 No Yes 5 05/09/2019 1019 121940 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots in in the regions in nglish,Krio and Local Languages 35,780,000.00 No Yes 6 05/09/2019 1019 121940 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Public Relations Activities in the Western Area Rural and Urban 31,400,000.00 No Yes 7 21/06/2019 744 116819 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Public Relations Activities in the South and East ern Provinces and Radio Discussion Programs 40,000,000.00 No Yes 8 17/05/2019 597 108091 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Public Relations Activities in the South and East ern Provinces and Radio Discussion Programs 29,000,000.00 No Yes 9 16/09/2020 1136 162352 Mohammed B. Mansaray (PRM) Production and Airing of Jingles(2 Slots in 2 stations /90 days/ 20,000 per slot in 5 Districts a 36,000,000.00 No Yes Sample Total 350,780,000.00

29. 28 Management’s Response Correspondences dated 22 nd August 2022, demanding full and immediate settlement of obligation have been sent to these utility companies . 6.5.3 Area of focus: Bank Reconciliation Statements We observed that the Administration has been performing monthly bank reconciliation as required. However reconciled amount (all bank debt errors) totaling Le414,659,600.00 between 2015 and 2021 remained uncor rected until 2022. Though 94.7% (Le392,299,100) has now been corrected between February and July 2022, 5.3% (Le22 ,360,500) remained unresolved. BANK RECONCILIATION ISSUES # Year Description Amount (Le) Status 1 16/05/2018 Amount Payable for Newspaper wrongly debited by the bank 7,600,000.00 Not Yet Corrected 2 05/03/2019 The a mount payable to Bees Travel for ticked debited twice by the bank 10,701,000.00 Not Yet Corrected 3 05/03/2019 The a mount payable to Bees Travel for ticked debited twice by the bank 14,088,700.00 Corrected in 2022 4 17/07/2019 Amount wrongly debited by the bank 4,059,500.00 Not Yet Corrected 5 10/09/2019 Road Maintenance Expenses 343,711,100.00 Corrected in 2022 6 30/09/2019 Supervision Fees SLRSA 17,500,000.00 Corrected in 2022 7 21/09/2020 Salaries to Alpha Kargbo and Mohammed Kamara were debited Twice by the bank 1,939,300.00 Corrected in 2022 8 09/10/2020 Amount Payable to Qumran Int. Debited Twice by Bank 7,560,000.00 Corrected in y 2023 9 23/03/2021 Amount Payable to Ventech Debited Twice by Bank 7,500,000.00 Corrected in 2022 Total 414,659,600.00 Implication Uncorrected bank error will increase the risk of fraudulent activities, disguise error and may negatively impact the Administration cash position Recommendation We recommend that:

55. 54 Findings 6.14. 2 ( a ) The Instillation of pedestrian guardrails at the Luml e y area project was relocated to Rokupr/Bai Bureh Road Junction since similar projects had already been implemented in the Lumley area by the Ministry of Transport funded by the World Bank. Replacement of Pedestrian Guard Rails on MacDonald Bridge along Waterloo - Tombo H ighway/ Edsatu Construction & Gen SLRA ( b) The Bridge is about 120 meters , and both sides of the bridge ha d gu ard rails, the guard rails were neatly installed and were still in good shape NO PROJECTS YEAR LOCATION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PROJECT COST 1 Lot - 1 Interim payment for Concreting of Selected Street in Freetown/ Demco Business Service SL.LTD 2021 Western Area Urban SLRA 121,189,400.00 2 Emelia Enterprise & Civil works/ Emelia Enterprise Civil Works 2021 Western Area Urban SLRA 144,233,580.00 3 Replacement of pedestrian guard rails on MacDonald Bridge along Waterloo - Tombo Highway/ Edsatu Construction& Gen Production & installation of pedestrian guard rails at Waterloo - Tombo/Tombo - Kent road Intersection Lot5/De Fitha & Koikpaka Ent. 2021 Western Area Urban SLRA 43,780,000.00 4 Repair/ Maintenance of concrete pavement along Nelson Lane, Off Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town/ GINA FINE ENTERPRISE 2020 Freetown SLRA 73,775,900.00 5 )/ SLRA Installation of Pedestrian guardrails and replacement/ missing vehicular and pedestrian slabs at critical sections/ Several Contractors/ SLRA Imprest 2019 Freetown SLRA 3,616,285,523.00 6 Production and Installation of pedestrian guardrails at the strategic intersection along Lumley Area in Freetown - Lot 1 and Around Eastern Police Freetown - Lot2 smart 2020 Western Area Rural SLRA 1,227,930,544.74 7Lot 1 Maintenance work on John obey Tripple Cell Culvert/ Qumran International Investment 2021 Western Area Rural SLRA 404, 538,200.00 8 Spot Improvement and Construction of Culverts in selected roads in WARD - C 2021 Western Area Rural Western Area Rural District Council 1,714,410.600.00 10 Feeder road maintenance FY 2021 2021 Western Area Rural Western Area Rural District Council 1,057,271,670.00 11 Data Collection (Road Inventory and Condition Survey & Road Assert Management SLRA 2021 Western Area Rural SLRA 4,5000,000,000.00

15. 14 Non - Executive Board of Dir e ctors ’ Cost Year Description Board Total Annual Administrative Cost % of Board Cost on Total annual Administrative Cost 2018 Fees and Allowances 206,853,000.00 1.41% Sitting Fees 3,000,000.00 0.02% Entertainment - 0.00% Travel 20,285,000.00 0.14% Total 230,138,000.00 10,465,101,000.00 2.20% 2019 Fees and Allowances 361,314,000.00 2.47% Sitting Fees - 0.00% Entertainment - 0.00% Travel - 0.00% Total 361,314,000.00 14,323,644,000.00 2.52% 2020 Fees and Allowances 1,103,376,200.00 7.54% Sitting Fees 92,113,500.00 0.63% Entertainment 28,725,000.00 0.20% Travel 73,530,000.00 0.50% Total 1,297,744,700.00 14,641,157,325.00 8.86% 2021 Fees and Allowances 896,210,000.00 5.22% Sitting Fees 143,250,000.00 0.83% Entertainm e nt 28,054,000.00 0.16% Travel 22,583,500.00 0.13% Total 1,090,097,500.00 17,180,998,712.00 6.34%