The church hall contained three people, plastic chairs, and a single fan.
Salim placed his own guide agreement on the table.
Pendo created a custody note and redacted tourist identifiers and booking references.
The document did not tell guides to overcharge visitors.
It was subtler.
Bonuses were connected to **conversion value bands**, repeat placement, and partner compliance.
“What is conversion value?” Rehema asked.
“The average value of groups I bring to partner stalls.”
“If a group spends more, your score rises?”
“Indirectly. Higher bands help.”
“Do you control the bill?”
“Not directly. But we know which stalls use the higher package categories.”
Pendo asked what happened if Salim repeatedly chose Jalia’s fixed-price stall.
“My conversion score drops. Route managers ask why.”
“Written penalty?”
“Not exactly.”
That distinction stayed in the record.
Salim’s monthly statements showed different bonus bands but did not prove every future roster assignment depended on them.
Rehema asked the association separately for roster criteria rather than turning Salim’s impression into a fact.
They mapped guide compensation more broadly: base guiding fee, conversion bonus, occasional tips, and real group-coordination work.
“Guide service has actual value,” Pendo said.
“Of course,” Salim answered.
That mattered. A fair solution could not simply erase guides’ earnings.
Then Salim admitted his own failure.
“Sometimes I told groups ‘this is the group menu’ without explaining that they could choose otherwise.”
“Did the association order you to say it was mandatory?”
“No.”
“Then that part is yours.”
“Yes.”
His willingness to accept responsibility strengthened the testimony.
They wrote the summary carefully: - guide compensation is legitimate work; - conversion bands create incentives around group spending; - guide and vendor contracts are formally separate; - the same band codes economically connect the two systems; - disclosure practices vary; - Salim personally failed to itemize choices in some cases; - no explicit instruction to lie was found.
Salim signed the summary.
He worried about colleagues.
“Do not write that guides charge tourists more.”
“We will write about the incentive system and the evidence we have. Your actions stay yours.”
The association’s written response claimed guide compensation and vendor prices were independent.
Rehema and Pendo traced the same category codes across the vendor rebate system and guide statements.
Formally separate.
Economically linked.
That wording survived review.
Then Halima called.
“Emergency cooperative vote tomorrow. Stay in the scheme, leave it, or demand reform.”
Rehema said she would present evidence and leave before voting because her mother’s stall was inside the room.
That night she ate dinner with Mama Saada and deliberately avoided the case for twenty minutes.
Their relationship needed somewhere to exist outside evidence.
Then her mother asked one question.
“If vendors vote for reform, will you close the complaint?”
“When refunds and the new process are actually operating. Not just because someone voted.”
Mama Saada nodded.
She was beginning to understand the same distinction:
Pendo asked Salim to identify which parts of his testimony were documents and which were his own interpretation. The agreement established the conversion bands. The payment statements established the bonuses. The belief that low conversion harmed future roster quality was partly his observation, not a written rule. They labeled it accordingly and sent a separate question to the association. Salim initially disliked the qualification because it weakened the story he wanted to tell. Then he admitted it also protected him from saying more than he could prove.
An announcement was not implementation.