By Mohammed Jallow
The recently tabled 2026 budget, presented by the Honourable Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, emerges as a document of ambition but not without significant fissures of concern. On its face, the budget signals a commendable drive toward strengthening revenue collection, directing resources toward human-development sectors, and instilling greater fiscal discipline. Yet upon closer scrutiny it reveals enduring structural risks, recurring inefficiencies and a heavy reliance on debt and external grants that threaten medium-term sustainability. In this commentary I offer a rigorous appraisal of both the positive contours and the problematic contours of the budget, and conclude with targeted recommendations for cost containment, revenue maximisation and the avoidance of counter-productive supplementary spending.
Positive features and strategic focus
Firstly, the budget deserves praise for several constructive elements. The Minister indicates projected total revenue and grants of approximately D35.87 billion an 11.7 % increase over the previous year driven largely by an intended 28 % expansion in tax revenue through digitalisation and compliance enhancements. This demonstrates a welcome pivot toward strengthening the domestic revenue base rather than solely depending on external support.
Secondly, the allocation of spending shows an explicit prioritisation of key social and economic sectors. For instance, the combined allocation for education, health and agriculture amounts to D10.82 billion, roughly one-quarter of the national budget. The remarkably high 84 % increase in agriculture’s allocation signals recognition of the imperative of food security and rural livelihoods. The expansion of programme-based budgeting (PBB) to 15 key ministries and agencies further suggests an intent to link spending with measurable outcomes.
Thirdly, the budget communicates an awareness of fiscal caution: recurrent expenditure is being watched carefully, and the government stresses “strict expenditure controls” in its presentation. In a global environment of economic uncertainty, that overt commitment is important.
These features reflect a mature recognition that public finances must not only expand, but do so in a manner that is disciplined, targeted and outcome-oriented. On this front the budget can reasonably be seen as a step in the right direction.
Core areas of concern and structural weaknesses
Despite the positive framing, a more rigorous reading reveals multiple structural vulnerabilities that must be addressed if the budget is to avoid becoming a path to stagnation or crisis.
1. Heavy debt servicing and limited fiscal space
Perhaps the most alarming feature is the magnitude of debt-service obligations. According to the analysis in The Standard, debt service is projected at D13.46 billion, nearly a third of total spending. The minister’s remarks concur: debt service is up from D11.07 billion in 2025 to D13.5 billion in 2026. Such a high proportion of the budget being consumed by past obligations leaves little room for transformative investment or meaningful contingency planning. It binds the government to servicing yesterday’s commitments rather than investing in tomorrow’s growth.
Moreover, the reliance on domestic borrowing (estimated at D7.6 billion) and heavy dependence on grants (which are by nature unpredictable) underscore the fragility of the fiscal structure.
2. Recurrent expenditure pressures and the wage bill
Another source of concern is the growth of the recurrent expenditure envelope. The budget projects D10.29 billion for personnel emoluments, a 16.36 % increase, covering promotions, housing allowances and new recruits. At the same time, subsidies and transfers are projected at D8.01 billion a 24 % rise directed largely to energy, infrastructure, agriculture and subventions. These increments, while possibly justified, aggregate to a ballooning wage and subsidy burden that constrains the capacity to invest in development.
Moreover, history shows a disconnect between what is approved and what is actually implemented for development expenditure. For example, one source notes that although D17 billion was approved for development expenditure in 2024, only D2.3 billion was spent. This implies that while recurrent costs grow, development delivery suffers a pattern that is economically unsustainable.
3. Over-reliance on external grants and weak non‐tax revenues
While tax revenue is projected to grow, non-tax revenues are forecast to decline significantly in one analysis from D7.96 billion to D5.19 billion in non-tax revenue. This deterioration of non-tax income (including dividends, fees, rents and profits from parastatals) is troubling, since it means the state remains overly reliant on taxes, grants and borrowing.
Equally, the high dependence on grants (71 % of development projects funded by donor grants according to one source) creates fiscal vulnerability to shifts in donor sentiment, aid delays, or conditionalities. It also means that genuine domestic revenue mobilisation and asset-creation are not being fully harnessed.
4. Disproportionate allocations and questionable spending lines
The budget line of D52.5 million for the annual nationwide “meet-the-people” tour by the President has drawn criticism. Given the competing demands on limited fiscal space, such high allocations for discretionary and politically oriented programmes raise questions about prioritisation, opportunity cost and value-for-money.
The allocation for the Office of the President itself is D740.49 million. While executive leadership deserves resourcing, given the fiscal pressures this amount warrants a close scrutiny for efficiency, transparency and cost-effectiveness.
5. Budget credibility and implementation risk
As touched on earlier, disparities between approved budgets and actual expenditures for development projects create implementation risk. If large approved envelopes do not translate into spent funds, then the efficacy of the budget suffers and credibility is weakened. The risk is that the budget becomes more of a document than a deliverable instrument.
6. Insufficient cost-containment and danger of supplementary appropriations
Finally, the budget’s projected deficit of D2.07 billion (about 1 % of GDP) is modest on paper but rests on assumptions of full revenue realisation and controlled expenditure.
Absent strict oversight, the pressure for supplementary funds and overspending remains high particularly if ministries, parastatals and subsidies expand unchecked. Over-reliance on supplementary appropriations deepens borrowing, undermines fiscal discipline and shifts the burden onto future years.
Recommendations: Cost-containment, revenue-maximisation & fiscal discipline
In light of the above, the following recommendations are advanced to enhance the efficiency, sustainability and impact of the 2026 budget and beyond:
A. Opportunity for cost-containment
1. Freeze non-essential discretionary spending: The Offices of the President and Vice President, “meet-the-people” tours and other high-visibility but low-impact programmes must be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Reductions of 10-20 % here could free resources for front-line sectors.
2. Rationalise the wage bill growth: New recruitment and allowance increases must be tied to performance, productivity and clarity of role not uniformly across all sectors. Conduct a comprehensive review of staffing in parastatals and ministries; identify redundancies, automate administrative tasks and shift to performance-based contracts.
3. Eliminate off-budget subsidies and transfers without measurable outcomes: Subsidies must be re-engineered to link to productivity (e.g., farmers’ input subsidies tied to output metrics), rather than open-ended transfers.
4. Cap supplementary appropriations: Establish a binding policy that no supplementary funds are granted without prior parliamentary approval and without a full public expenditure review. This will mitigate the habit of overspending mid-year and prevent ballooning domestic borrowing.
5. Improve development expenditure utilisation: Strengthen project delivery units, enforce timelines, and publicly report quarterly on realisation of development spending. By improving actual spend, the government gains credibility and prevents funds being stuck in unutilised allocations.
B. Revenue-enhancement and loss reduction minimisation
1. Broaden the revenue base beyond taxes: Reinforce non-tax revenue streams e.g., enforce dividends from State Owned enterprises, exploit land leases, boost digital service charges, enforce telecommunications and fintech revenue assurance. The minister mentions these measures, which must be fully operationalised.
2. Improve tax compliance via technology: The rollout of e-invoicing, digital rental income taxation and telecom/fintech oversight must be expedited. A dedicated Revenue Assurance Unit should publish data on compliance, audits, and evasion.
3. Strengthen parastatal governance: Many state-owned firms are weak revenue generators and a drain on the treasury. Implement strict performance contracts, reduce political interference, and require dividend payments to the treasury with minimal delays.
4. Safeguard tariff and user-fee integrity: Review existing user-fees in public services, ensuring they reflect full cost recovery or subsidy is transparently justified. Avoid revenue leakages through weak collection systems or un-codified exemptions.
5. Mobilise agriculture and rural sectors for growth: With agriculture’s allocation up 84 %, ensure the sector produces revenue by shifting from pure subsidy mindset to supporting agribusiness, value-addition, export capacity and public-private partnerships. This supports diversification and reduces import dependence.
C. Strategic re-prioritisation and borrowing discipline
1. Prioritise high impact, low cost interventions: While debt servicing and recurrent costs are high, more of the recurrent envelope should be geared toward outcomes rather than inputs. For example, instead of simply expanding staff numbers, focus on teacher incentives, digital learning, mobile health units these can yield greater value per dalasi.
2. Embed strict borrowing limits and transparency: In view of the heavy debt burden, domestic borrowing must be capped at a fixed proportion of GDP (for example 3 %) and every debt issuance must include a clear spending tranche tied to measurable outcomes. The government should publish a public debt sustainability analysis annually to parliament.
3. Avoid dependence on grants as a planning assumption: While external grants are welcome, budget planning must assume minimal disbursement for key programmes. This forces the government to prioritise own-revenues first and treat grants as supplementary.
4. Re-orient subsidies toward productivity not consumption: Rather than broad energy or fuel subsidies, the state should gradually shift toward targeted subsidies for renewable energy access, smallholder irrigation and agro-processing. These yield longer-term returns and reduce import bills.
5. Enforce Programme-Based Budgeting (PBB) rigorously: The expansion of PBB to 15 ministries must be extended to all major line ministries. Every ministry must publish key performance indicators (KPIs), quarterly progress reports and actual outcomes at year-end. Resources should be re-allocated mid-year if a ministry falls short of delivering.
Concluding remarks: A call for fiscal prudence and strategic discipline
In sum, the 2026 budget presents a narrative of progress increased revenues, greater priority for human-development sectors, and a stated commitment to discipline. Yet the devil remains in the details. Without rigorous implementation, cost controls and revenue strengthening, the budget risks becoming a blueprint for incrementalism rather than transformation. The dominance of debt-service, the swelling wage and subsidy burdens, the dependence on uncertain grants and the risk of supplementary spending pose clear threats to fiscal sustainability.
I therefore urge the Honourable Minister and the Office of the President to resist the temptation of expansion without discipline; to avoid the proliferation of spending lines that drain resources; to resist supplementary appropriations that stretch the fiscal envelope; and to prioritise using every dalasi with maximal effect. The message is clear: we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. Instead, we must earn our way to resilience.
Let this budget not be simply an arithmetic exercise but a covenant with the Gambian people a commitment that we shall spend responsibly, invest strategically, raise revenue efficiently and deliver tangible outcomes. Let us not repeat the error of consuming tomorrow’s fiscal space today. Let us instead build the foundation of a Gambian economy that stands on its own feet, that invests in its people, that use every resource wisely, and that leaves future generations not with burdens but with opportunities.
Finally, to the Office of the President and every ministry, I offer this admonition: do not permit the ceremonial and the political to override the imperative of fiscal discipline. Do not permit the swell of recurrent spending, the accumulation of debt and the proliferation of subsidies to crowd out the need for transformative investment. Let each appropriation reflect not a line item but a promise kept to the citizenry. Only then will the 2026 budget be more than a document it will be the launching pad for sustainable growth, strengthened public services and genuine national renewal.
In the spirit of accountability and hope, I commend the Minister for laying this budget and our national Assembly for its upcoming scrutiny. I invite decision-makers to move beyond presentation to performance, beyond promise to proof, and beyond spending to results. The Gambian people deserve nothing less.
