Dear Editor,
The media is occasionally filled with various claims regarding government transactions and the management of the economy. A prevalent assertion from critics is that the government has not adequately disclosed pertinent facts concerning matters of public interest. There are numerous instances of such claims.
The “Senegambia” Bridge has had significant attention regarding whether it was financed through recycling or a mortgage scheme. The specifics of the transactions remain unclear, and the purpose is ambiguous, with the outcome unresolved. The anticipated payments and the actual amounts received from the transaction have not yet been fully disclosed, and the claimed purpose has yet to be fully outlined.
In the case of the bridge, it was generating an impressive amount of revenue, according to various government officials, which raises questions as to why it would need to be “recycled.” Furthermore, funds from such a transaction should ideally be directed towards another specifically identified development initiative.
The contract and construction of the Bertil Harding Highway were discussed in a media confrontation between a government official and an opposition advocate, focusing on the actual expenditure compared to the standard unit cost of construction of such infrastructure. The claimed final cost could be as high as US$6 million per kilometre after completion, compared to the claimed international acceptable standard of a little more than US$1 million.
By the way, these road works appear to take so long for merely a twenty-kilometre stretch. The traffic congestion persists (contrary to a primary purpose of highways) mainly due to inadequate design to cater for the fact that a significant amount of traffic diverts into the surrounding urban settlements. These designs have not adequately accommodated the flow of traffic branching off from the main highway, resulting in a continuous struggle to access coastal settlements, such as Brufut and its environs, as well as to facilitate the navigation of the confluence of traffic at Sukuta and Senegambia. It is not the attitude of drivers, as often claimed, but the design of the road itself.
More recent events indicate a concerning pattern in the defence mechanisms of the government in allaying criticisms of policies and transactions, with a more recent troubling origin from the Central Bank, which serves as one of the cornerstones and ethical overseers of the economy.
The public discourse involves the sale of Megabank, the provision of US$100 million forex to private enterprises and the swapping of currency of US$75 million to raise funds for more road works.
The recent discussions have centred on the sale (or, as it has been termed, the “seizure”) of a commercial bank that was rescued from the brink of collapse and subsequently transformed into a profitable entity. The evaluation of the bank and its assets has been called into question, particularly in the light of an investment made almost a decade ago, only to be sold now for the same amount.
A debate was also on the provision and justification of US$100 million in foreign exchange to companies for the purchase of “essential” goods—items which seem to have an extensive definition.
Furthermore, there is questionable prudence in the currency swapping of US$75 million at what seems to be a high cost or interest rate and the very need for it in the context of its purpose.
There seems to be an emerging and persistent pattern of responses from the government in these and numerous other previous instances. Generally, the responses seem to focus on the nomenclature or description of the transactions and less on the crux of the matter. The terminology used for transactions is not the primary concern; rather, it is the prudence and result or returns and the level of transparency of these transactions that present unexplained challenges.
For instance, it does not seem to make economic sense to invest a certain amount in an asset only to have it disposed of for the same amount several years later – be it “recycling” an asset with a contestable valuation, selling a rehabilitated bank, swapping currency or undertaking contracts. It is concerning when such decisions originate from the oversight bodies of a country’s economy and financial institutions.
The above examples, along with numerous other frequent responses to criticisms, seem to demonstrate a certain unconventional attitude towards governance and economic management – an attitude of presenting counterclaims that tenuously attempt to justify and cushion the effects of questionable policies, transactions, and unsavoury pronouncements of a government.
The economy is no one’s friend; it has its laws that are not too malleable to manipulation by rhetoric. It must be managed professionally. Professionalism generally arises from adherence to the values and principles of the vocation, which delineate boundaries against political and subjective hindrance and intrusion. A nation cannot prosper based on an ambiguous and questionable management of its economy.
It may be noted that intellect is a significant aspect of humanity. There is a wealth of reasoning available in the public domain, drawing conclusions from various explanations and their sources. Additionally, an economy responds impartially to management decisions affecting it, whether positively or negatively, – without fear or favour.
The recurrent manufacturing of truth that is spun out anytime covert transactions, unfavourable policy decisions and unpalatable pronouncements are publicly criticised or exposed, does not constitute an assuring governance response to public concerns. It is not a beneficial tool for managing a country.
Just thinking aloud.
Lamino Lang Coma
Brikama
