By Yero S. Bah
Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (Covid) in the Gambia, internal and external donors are either pumping in billions of dalasis or making firmed pledges to the government of the Gambia led by President Adama Barrow in fighting the highly contagious bug.
These monies have created unending debates, claims and counter claims, both in ordinary “vous” as well as at the National Assembly [the national Bantaba] by parliamentarians (or NAMs) to actually ensure some form of accountability and transparency in the whole process.
On Thursday May 7, 2020, the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs (MoFEA), Mr. Mambury Njie was before the National Assembly Select Committee on Finance and Public Accounts, where he was grilled over the huge sums of money committed by the Barrow-government towards the country’s ongoing fight against the deadly pandemic, and provision of massive foods items to vulnerable Gambian households, without the legislative “blessings” by the NAMs.
As per public opinion on social media, one of the main sticking points of the debate is the legality of the economic term “virement” which serves the executive the power to transfer or re-allocate the budget to other departments, ministries or even re-allocate it for other urgent purposes without approaching the National Assembly for an appropriation.
The PDOIS NAM for Wuli West, Hon.Sidia Jatta didn’t mince his words when he pointedly told the Finance Minister that the virement is a “fraud” which is not supported by any law. The respected and vocal lawmaker was supported by most of his colleague parliamentarians as they quoted various sections of the Public Finance Act to justify their arguments against the Finance and Economic Affairs Minister’s approach on the allocation of 734 million dalasi, to provide emergency food relief for vulnerable Gambians during this State of Public Emergency, and the previous amount of 500 million dalasis said to be allocated to the Ministry of Health to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, all “without approval” by the Legislative House of the nation. Meanwhile, Minister Njie has denied any wrongdoing in the process.
To shed some light on the issue of “virement”, Mansa Banko Online on Friday May 8, 2020 had a remote interview with a Gambian public policy analyst, Mr. Sana M. Darboe, Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SMD Associates in Dakar, Senegal.
However, the Public Policy and Management Expert has held a contrary view to the ones proffered by the parliamentarians on virement, as he stressed that “virement” is not a fraud. Darboe pointed out that, it is an acceptable public finance practice or tool in managing the budget by the executive. He enlightens that, other possible terms for virement are “transfers or re-allocations”.
But he observed that, discussions about public finance could often be a bit “technical” posing problems for the Gambian legislators, most of whom, understandably, are not very skilled in the area.
CEO Darboe deduced some facts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to support his argument, explaining virements are the movement of budgetary resources between line ministries, programs, policy areas, expenditure categories or line items. He enunciated that virement takes place after the budget has already been authorized by parliament; it does not affect the total level of the budgeted expenditures; should not fundamentally alter the composition of the expenditure appropriated by the legislature; and it is carried out under the executive authority of government and does not require another legislative authorization.
The Public Policy expert further indicated that the purpose of virement is to deal with uncertainties that arise during the course of the budget implementation, and as a result of the need to make adjustments to the appropriation as approved by the legislature.
“It is among a number of tools to deal with uncertainties,” the senior official of SMD Associates, stated. He highlighted that change of priorities or demands on the government services, expenditure required in responding to unforeseen events, inaccurate assumptions underlying the original budget estimates could warrant measures such as virement. He argued, “It provides limited standing authority to the executive to make adjustments to the budget to respond to these uncertainties.”
The Public Policy guru also delved into the importance of making the laws governing virement to be explicit. He maintained that, it is not uncommon for governments to introduce changes to the appropriations approved by the legislature both in terms of the overall level of expenditure and its composition.
He, however, cautioned that large, unregulated changes to the approved budget could lead to loss of budget credibility and undermine the budget’s relevance as a government’s principal policy and financial planning instrument.
“The rules and regulations are specified in a public finance Act, an organic law not the constitution,” he submitted. He cited some of the countries where virement is being practised under various conditions, namely France, United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand, Austria, and also several other African countries. But he also pointed to some countries where, he said virement is totally banned such as Finland and Sweden.
Darboe reasoned that the magnitude of the coronavirus related expenditure required, would fundamentally alter the allocation of expenditure appropriated by the legislature and therefore, requires its approval; adding it is a supplementary appropriation that is needed.
“Emergency expenditure can be allowed through virement but must be regularized through the supplementary appropriation,” he clarified.
CEO Darboe urged the courts to interpret the law or any conflict between the constitution and any other legislation, citing such practices in some Francophone countries like Senegal where constitutional courts or “Conseil Constitutionnel” (French) exist and are mandated for such roles.
