Dr. Ousman Gajigo, Economist formerly with ADB
By Dr. Ousman Gajigo
The government released a statement on 9 December 2024 disputing parts of my claim on their Concession Agreement with Africa50 on the Senegambia Bridge. In my commentary on Kerr Fatou on 5th December 2024, I claimed that the government hid this clause, which prevents them from developing any bridge that would compete with the Senegambia bridge for traffic. This is a fact. They did not deny the fact that this clause was hidden even though it has been in the signed agreement from the beginning. Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance has had more than a year to be transparent about it but failed to do so.
The government claimed that the clause only extends to 50km within the Senegambia Bridge. The IMF document, through which I came to know about the no-compete clause, stated the following:
“During the concession period, no competing route will be developed until the traffic volume reaches a sustained profitability level.”
As everyone can see from this statement, there is no mention of a 50km radius. If the government wants to settle this issue regarding the 50km radius, they need to immediately release the concession agreement for the public to decide. What is indisputable is that the government made no mention of this clause until I brought up the matter.
Let me also stress that the clause in the agreement refers “competing route”. This means that the government is prevented from developing not only bridges, but even new ferry crossing that may compete with the Senegambia bridge during the contract years. I urge Minister Keita to re-read the “competing route” clause carefully in the agreement before his ministry putsout another statement. There are more details about the agreement that are forthcoming.
It is instructive that the government’s statement did not dispute the substance of the other claims I made, which include the fact that this agreement does not meet the requirements of an “asset recycling” deal because the new infrastructure that would be developed was not specified and the tranches received from Africa50 has already been included in the budget last year.Furthermore, the negotiation was poorly handled by the government without appropriate due diligence such as conducting new traffic studies prior to signing the agreement.
During my commentary, I indicated that the concession was for 15 years. In fact, the concession is apparently for 25 years. So however limited the radius is, the restrictions will be in place for 25 years. This important detail should not have been kept hidden from the Gambian public.
If the government were serious about respecting the rights of citizens about “interrogating agreement”, they would actually be transparent about an important agreement such as this. The only way to be transparent is to release the agreement to the public.