Lamin Manneh, Economist
The Government of The Gambia has singled out my brother and friend, Dr. Ousman Gagigo, for a smear campaign following our programme on Kerr Fatou, on Thursday 5th December, 2024. Dr. Gagigo, a highly qualified, competent, honest and patriotic Gambian, simply revealed the malfeasance of this government and its continued alienation and destruction of our fledgling economic assets and fabric.
This government is not only alienating the state-owned enterprises and other economic and strategic infrastructure and assets that preceding governments have built, but it is unabashedly trying to spin a narrative of fake achievements.
Although Dr. Gagigo is more than capable of defending himself, and he has already done so, I stand by him and every word he and I said on the aforesaid Kerr Fatou programme.
The supposed Asset-Recycing Programme (ARP) Agreement published by the government, yesterday 10th December, 2024, to refute our assertions, is nothing but an “Execution Version” of the agreement, as indicated on the first page of the document. If the government wants to make a point, it should publish the original agreement signed with Africa50 and all its relevant annexures, initialled and signed. If anything, the published agreement, proves our point and shows even more outrageous clauses contained in the contract. We were aware of those clauses but if we had mentioned them, the government would have denied them. Now, the truth is gradually surfacing
Currently, I am busy with our UDP tour of the country but we will come back to this published agreement in greater detail, in due course, to discuss it for the benefit of Gambians.
In the meantime, I would like to draw the attention of my compatriots to the entry, “Heads of Terms”, on the first page of the document under the heading, Roman numerals 3 (iii). It states that the “heads of terms, dated 4th July, 2023, setting out material commercial and legal terms for this agreement … SUBSTANTIALLY reflected in this agreement”, meaning that parts have been left out, whereas the Heads of Terms are an important and integral part of the agreement.
People familiar with this type of document should also look closely at the definitions starting from page 2, especially the “Accrued Interest”, “Financing Agreements”, “Actual IRR”, “Adjusted Termination Amount”, Adjusted Termination Amount Floor” etc.
Another very unfair provision in this agreement, probably worse than the one on competing bridges, is the one on competing routes, as stipulated on page 5 of the published document and which reads: “any NEW sea-faring (including ferry), road excluding competing bridges, or rail transport infrastructure, including mass transport scheme, developed by or on behalf of any Government Authority (including by means of a public, private partnership or otherwise) or otherwise permitted, subsidised or authorised by any Government Authority which adversely affects, or is LIKELY to adversely affect, traffic volumes on the Bridge and/or the operating revenues of the Concessionaire, provided that, the performance of routine maintenance of Access Roads, or the upgrading of the surfaces of access roads where there is NO INCREASE IN THE CAPACITY of such access roads shall not qualify as the development of a “Competing Route” for the purposes of this Agreement. Please note that the words in capital letters are my emphasis. Similarly, please note that the stipulation is not very well written or is deliberately ambiguous in order to lead to confusion and/or a need for interpretation. Suffice it to note that the objective of this provision is to restrict competition with the Senegambia Bridge.
Agreeing to the above provision on “competing routes” is tantamount to dereliction of duty. How could this Minister of Finance and the government he serves under, agree to such an outrageous provision, which, to all intents and purposes, mortgages for 25 years (the duration of the recycling agreement) any serious development potential of our transport infrastructure?! There are other unacceptable provisions in this ARP Agreement, which I invite Gambians to read carefully and make up their own minds.
The Government will try to spin the Agreement, even though it is not the very agreement signed with Africa50. If the Minister of Finance is confident about the usefulness of this ARP Agreement, he should be willing to debate it with Dr. Gagigo and I on any audio visual platform of his choice.
In the same vein, the National Assembly should invite the Minister to explain to them the realities of the ARP Agreement. That is the very least he should do because the Gambians deserve to know what this government is doing in such a vital sector of our economy.