Omission or withholding? As part of tomorrow’s budget debate, MPs have not received the multi-year expenditure programming document, which sets out expenditure by ministry or constitutional institution.

The debate surrounding the Prime Minister’s General Policy Statement is overshadowing an important topic: tomorrow, the Minister of Finance and Budget will appear before the Members of Parliament, convened for the Budget Orientation Debate. This is an important moment for the government and the National Assembly as part of the preparation of Budget 2025. For the new authorities, it will be the most strategic tool for implementing their « Project » for the country’s development.

Sonko’s passage at the Assembly: Yaw censors the DPG

Today, MPs are still in the dark. This is because the government has not submitted to the National Assembly all the documents needed to draw up next year’s finance bill: the Multiannual Budgetary and Economic Programming Document. But what is missing is the most important document, which should give parliamentarians a more general overview of the Sonko government’s budgetary orientations: the Multiannual Expenditure Programming Document. As part of the procedure for drafting and voting on finance laws, organic law no. 202007 of February 26, 2020, in particular article 56, clearly states: « The Finance Bill for the year is drawn up with reference to the Multi-Year Budgetary and Economic Programming Document covering a minimum period of three years. On the basis of precise and justified economic assumptions, the Multi-Year Budgetary and Economic Programming Document assesses the overall level of expected State revenues, broken down by major tax category, and budget expenditure, This multi-year budgetary and economic programming document also presents the evolution of all resources, expenses and debt of the categories of public bodies referred to in article 54 of the present organic law, as well as the financial situation of public enterprises over the period under consideration and, where applicable, the assistance that the State may grant to the latter. Lastly, it sets medium-term budgetary and financial equilibrium targets in application of the provisions of the Convergence, Stability, Growth and Solidarity Pact for UEMOA member states. » 

Demographic survey: Fewer children die, fewer are born

According to article 52, « programs or allocations are included in multi-year expenditure programming documents for each ministry or constitutional institution, annex budgets and special Treasury accounts, consistent with the multi-year budgetary and economic programming document referred to in article 51 of this organic law. The multi-annual expenditure programming documents provide, for a minimum period of three years, for indicative purposes, the evolution of credits and expected results for each program in relation to the objectives pursued ».

Suppression of Hcct or Cese?

Is it an omission? Or withholding? What are we hiding? It is in this document that the State is going to record certain programs, such as the dissolution of the Cese or the Hcct, with the budgetary programming allocated to these institutions deemed budget-devouring by the new regime. An expert in parliamentary law, Alioune Souaré also wonders: « Omission or concealment? No later than the 30th of the current month, the Minister of Finance and his colleague in charge of the Economy are required to appear before the National Assembly for the Budgetary Orientation Debate (Dob). Art. 56 of the Lolf requires them not only to comply, but also to publish and make available to members of parliament two financial documents that will serve as a basis for discussion, namely the Dpbep and the Dppd. But apparently this is not the case: only the Dpbep (Multiannual Budgetary and Economic Programming Document) is sent to the National Assembly. Why hasn’t the other document, the Dppd (Multiannual Expenses Programming Document), been sent to the National Assembly, as stipulated in the aforementioned article? Are we trying to hide something in this document, or is it a simple oversight? »

New bond issue: Senegal Debt Project

He continues: « In any case, MPs must demand this Dppd, which is very important, as it gives them an overall picture of the allocation of funds and the results expected from the programs to be implemented from 2025 to 2027. The Dob without the Dpbep and the Dppd loses all its legality and substance. Of course, the failings are noted on the part of the Executive, but the MPs are not to be outdone either, as they have never complied with the application of art. 41 bis of their RI, which states: « No later than June 1 of each year, the standing committees organize hearing sessions with the ministries falling within their remit. The reports resulting from these hearings are used to inform the MPs, notably in the context of the Dob. ».

In any case, an institutional conflict would do no one any good. The regime, which cannot dissolve the National Assembly before September, is caught in an emergency to pass the next budget. Even though it has a parliamentary minority. Will the peaceful cohabitation continue? The increasing likelihood that the Dpg will not be held by July 5, as defended by the Yaw deputies, risks removing the varnish that masked appearances…

By Bocar SAKHO / bsakho@lequotdien.sn

  • Translation by Ndey T. SOSSEH