The management of Sénégal’s political funds within the Primature has ignited a fierce public debate. Political commentator Badara Gadiaga has openly condemned what he describes as “vampirism” in the utilization of the discretionary allocations designated for the head of government. According to Gadiaga’s assertions, out of an estimated 1.77 billion CFA francs, former Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko allegedly left only approximately 70 million CFA for his successor. This accusation, made during a broadcast in Dakar, shines a spotlight on the ambiguous nature of these opaque credits, which traditionally operate outside parliamentary scrutiny.

A controversy directly targeting the Primature

This issue delves into a sensitive mechanism at the heart of Senegalese political life. Political funds, distinct from standard budgetary lines, are intended to finance sovereign expenditures and discretionary interventions by the Prime Minister. Their usage is not subject to conventional public accounting regulations, a fact that frequently fuels suspicions of partisan manipulation. By explicitly naming Ousmane Sonko, a pivotal figure within the ruling coalition and president of the Pastef party, Badara Gadiaga shifts the critique directly to the core of the executive apparatus established following the March 2024 political transition.

The claim of a residual balance of 70 million CFA francs, when contrasted with an initial allocation of 1.77 billion, has captured significant attention. The stark disparity between these figures suggests that an overwhelming portion of the credits was expended prior to the handover. Gadiaga interprets this as evidence of hasty management inconsistent with the ethos of austerity that the new administration has championed since assuming power. However, these allegations have not, at this juncture, been substantiated by any publicly disclosed accounting documents.

A recurring debate on budgetary transparency

This controversy does not emerge in a vacuum. For several years, Senegalese civil society and a segment of the political class have advocated for a comprehensive overhaul of the legal framework governing political and special funds. Organizations such as the Forum Civil and various governance bodies have pressed for stricter oversight, mirroring reforms undertaken in other democracies across the sub-region. This question forms part of a broader discussion on accountability and the curbing of extra-budgetary spending, a theme prominently featured by the Diomaye Faye-Ousmane Sonko duo during their presidential campaign.

In practice, the Cour des comptes (Court of Auditors) remains the sole institution empowered to conduct an in-depth examination of these financial flows. Yet, its reports seldom provide granular detail on the Primature’s specific allocations. Should the reported discrepancy between the initial endowment and the transferred balance be confirmed, it would raise serious questions about the consistency between the new authorities’ proclaimed commitment to change and the actual exercise of power. It would also prompt scrutiny of the internal control mechanisms within the Primature during the institutional transition phase.

A political signal amidst realignment

The current political climate lends particular significance to Badara Gadiaga’s intervention. Since the appointment of a new Prime Minister, the political landscape in Dakar has been undergoing a period of realignment, where every public statement is meticulously scrutinized. Internal tensions within the ruling coalition, coupled with efforts by an opposition seeking renewed momentum, explain the intensity of discussions surrounding financial governance. This controversy implicitly fuels the political narrative of Ousmane Sonko’s detractors, who accuse him of concentrating substantial resources in the months leading up to his departure from the Primature.

As of now, no official response has been issued by the Primature’s offices. Allies of the former Prime Minister might cite expenditures incurred for the preparation of political and administrative deadlines, as well as for the routine functioning of cabinet operations. Without the detailed publication of financial movements, the debate risks remaining confined to a communication battle, devoid of documented arbitration. Nevertheless, the demand for an independent audit, voiced by several parties, could gain traction if the controversy persists.