The accounts office smelled of printer heat and cold tea.
Daudi set one rule before the reconciliation began: wages, employee deductions and supplier balances would remain separate. Nobody would manufacture one frightening number.
Miriam brought the payroll ledger. Accounts staff brought statutory schedules. Bank statements approved specifically for payroll reconciliation were displayed on a shared screen.
The first number was documented net wages due.
The second was deductions shown in payroll calculations for which settlement proof was not present in the records they had been given.
Asha Ndege asked where the money had gone if deductions appeared on a payslip.
“A payslip proves an obligation,” Daudi said. “It does not prove the cash was physically separated.”
They sampled employees from different departments and compared approved payroll figures to payslips. The numbers matched except for Kelvin’s already-separated overtime dispute.
“So the total is not imagination,” Asha said.
“It is the payroll-file total. Final liability can still change through corrections.”
They built an annex with columns for liability type, source record, amount, settlement evidence and dispute status. Individual loan details remained private; the public summary would state only that some deductions were under reconciliation.
“Worker claims are not permission to publish people’s debts,” Asha said.
Daudi agreed.
During the sample check, Miriam discovered one employee-loan deduction that appeared on the payroll file but lacked the lender confirmation normally attached to the settlement pack. She wanted to mention it in the meeting summary.
Daudi stopped her from naming the employee.
“The public issue is that some deductions require reconciliation. The person’s loan is not public evidence.”
Asha Ndege nodded. That rule later became part of the committee’s information practice: disclose totals necessary to protect a collective claim, keep individual financial details with the worker unless they are directly needed.
The crisis was becoming more transparent without becoming indiscriminate.
Ms. Naliaka arrived with her supplier statement and immediately made the conflict harder.
“I want my money too. If you freeze every asset and use every available shilling for payroll, my company can fail. I employ ten people.”
Kelvin started to answer angrily, but Rehema stopped him.
Daudi put the figures on the table. “We do not have authority to decide legal priority among all creditors. We can propose a short standstill so value does not move before the claims are visible.”
Naliaka would consider twenty-four hours. She would not waive anything.
Miriam then produced management’s draft NDA for Sunday’s meeting. It prohibited disclosure of almost any financial, operational or restructuring information.
Kelvin laughed. “So even saying we have not been paid becomes confidential?”
“Potentially,” Daudi said.
He proposed a narrower structure: investor terms could remain confidential, but employees should receive a statement of payroll due, amount under reconciliation, asset standstill and next payment mechanism.
Before the file closed, all three worker representatives initialed the total sheet as witnesses to the calculation, not as people accepting legal priority. Naliaka signed only her own supplier balance.
Each person stayed within scope.
That evening the board secretary confirmed Sunday’s meeting and again requested NDAs before disclosure.
Then Amani received a message from a board member who did not want to be named:
**Do not sign anything backdated tomorrow. Ask for the original board minutes.**
Amani showed it to Daudi.
“An insider?”
“A message from someone. Not a board record.”
“Will you ask for the minutes?”
“I will ask for the minutes that approved the transfers and the rescue plan.”
For the first time since Wednesday, management’s explanation would have to meet the documents that supposedly authorized it.