Ladies and gentlemen, Pastef MPs,

Your mentor, Mr Ousmane Sonko, is asking you not to vote for the 2026 supplementary budget (LFR) bill as it stands. You have fallen in line with this instruction, to the point that the National Assembly’s Finance Committee rejected the bill and the government’s amendments on 23 October.

You are free to challenge the government’s choices. That is your absolute right. But when you commit the National Assembly to such a significant confrontation, you have a basic obligation: to explain to the Senegalese people what the figures really say, what exactly you are disputing and what you are proposing instead.

For in this affair there is a major political contradiction that you cannot dodge: the LFR whose trade-offs you are now disputing amends an initial 2026 Finance Law drawn up and presented under the government then led by Mr Ousmane Sonko.

This is therefore not a budget that came out of nowhere, designed by political opponents to sabotage Pastef’s programme. It is a revision of the forecasts of a budget adopted under the leadership of your own mentor, in the light of an economic and energy situation that has changed profoundly.

The first question you must put to your mentor is therefore this: can one today denounce the budgetary consequences of financial assumptions that were adopted under one’s own leadership, without explaining what has changed in the meantime?

Politics demands consistency. Above all, it demands that one take responsibility for the choices made when one held government office.

Energy: the official figures contradict the image of the people being abandoned

It is on energy subsidies that your argument most deserves to be tested seriously against the budget data.

The initial 2026 Finance Law provided for an envelope of 250 billion CFA francs for energy subsidies. The draft supplementary budget raises this envelope to 790.3 billion CFA francs.

Let us do the sums, without polemic and without manipulation.

The increase is 540.3 billion CFA francs. The revised envelope is about 3.16 times the initial envelope, an increase of more than 216%.

In other words, the government now plans to devote more than three times the amount originally budgeted to energy subsidies. This envelope represents 3.5% of GDP, compared with 1.1% in the initial Finance Law. These figures appear in the official draft LFR published by the Directorate General of the Budget. So what exactly are we talking about when government policy is presented as if it simply amounted to abandoning consumers in the face of rising international prices?

Two things must be distinguished here: criticism of how subsidies are allocated between the different energy products, and the reality of the overall budgetary effort. Mr Ousmane Sonko has notably challenged the trajectory of subsidies for petroleum products, citing an envelope of 552 billion CFA francs and warning of a possible rise in the price of diesel. This debate deserves to be examined in detail, because the breakdown between petroleum products, electricity and other items can indeed alter the effects of energy policy.

One cannot honestly speak of an overall budgetary disengagement without explaining why an envelope rising from 250 to 790.3 billion CFA francs should be presented as proof that consumers are being abandoned. The reality is more demanding: the government must show how this effort is distributed, which consumers it protects, what savings it allows and how it prevents the energy bill from becoming unsustainable for the public finances.

It is on these questions that the parliamentary debate should focus, rather than merely on the clash between the statements of two political camps.

An extra 540.3 billion: who is weighing the scale of this effort?

Ladies and gentlemen, MPs, an additional 540.3 billion CFA francs is no trifling sum in a country facing considerable social needs and tight budgetary margins.

This effort is intended, in particular, to absorb the effects of rising international energy prices and to prevent the full shock from being passed on immediately to consumers.

Let us take some concrete examples.

A public transport driver who uses diesel is sensitive to any change in the price of fuel. If his costs rise, he may seek to raise his fares, cut his margins or reduce the number of trips he makes. The possible consequences then affect workers, schoolchildren, students and households who depend on transport every day.

A trader who has goods brought in from the wholesale markets may face higher transport costs. Depending on his margins and the competition, he may absorb part of them or pass part of them on in his selling prices.

A family that pays electricity bills and buys basic necessities every day is also exposed to the direct or indirect consequences of the cost of energy. That is why energy subsidies are not an abstract question. They are an instrument of economic policy that can cushion an external shock. But they also have a budgetary cost: every franc devoted to a subsidy must be financed, and public resources are not unlimited.

The government therefore says it has chosen to bear a much larger share of the energy shock rather than let it be passed on in full to consumers. This is a trade-off that must be assessed on the basis of the amounts actually spent, the prices actually charged and the effectiveness of the protection provided.

It would, however, be going too far to claim that tripling the envelope will, on its own, guarantee a fall in the cost of living. Prices depend on several factors and subsidies do not feed through evenly to all households.

But it is equally excessive to ignore the budget increase and to present the debate as if no additional effort were being made.

Restoring the public finances is not a communications exercise

We must also look at the situation as a whole.

The draft LFR revises expected economic growth for 2026 to 2.7%, down from 5% in the initial assumptions. The budget deficit is revised to 7.6% of GDP, compared with 5.4% in the Lfi. Expected revenue from the Economic and Social Recovery Plan falls from 762.9 billion to 311.5 billion CFA francs, a drop of 451.4 billion CFA francs.

These figures raise a fundamental question: how can support for the population be maintained while preventing the public finances from becoming even more fragile?

The government must explain its choices. But opposition to those choices must also be accompanied by costed proposals. If you believe subsidies should remain higher, say what additional resources will finance them. If you think certain spending should be cut, specify which. If you dispute the revenue forecasts, demonstrate which assumptions you consider wrong and on what data you base your own estimates. Parliamentary challenge is useful when it improves public decisions. It becomes sterile when it is limited to setting political statements against one another without offering a credible financial solution.

The question is not who will win the tug-of-war. It is how to preserve purchasing power without worsening budgetary imbalances, how to finance public services and how to protect the investment essential to the country’s future.

The Senegalese want solutions, not a war of positioning

Figures from the National Agency for Statistics and Demography underline the social urgency. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the broad unemployment rate reached 23.3%, compared with 20% a year earlier. Among young people aged 15 to 24, 33.5% were not in employment, education or training. The employment rate stood at 39.1%.

These indicators cannot be attributed to the LFR alone. They nevertheless show why the budget debate must be conducted with great responsibility. The young graduate waiting for a job opportunity cannot be satisfied with a confrontation between leaders. The household struggling to make ends meet cannot live on contradictory statements. The entrepreneur who has to pay employees and suppliers needs visibility. The worker who depends on public transport needs to know the real consequences of decisions for his daily expenses.

In this context, MPs have a duty to question the government, but also to grasp the consequences of their own decisions.

Rejecting a draft LFR does not automatically lead to higher prices, an interruption of public services or a halt to investment. These consequences depend on the legal framework, the appropriations available and the decisions that follow. But blocking a budget revision can complicate the necessary trade-offs and prolong uncertainty.

That is why your responsibility does not end with a vote against. It obliges you to propose a way out. The Presidency’s special funds: a question of consistency and transparency

The budget debate also raises a major institutional question: that of the oversight of special funds, also referred to in the legislation as special appropriations.

On 25 August 2026, the Constitutional Council declared inadmissible bill No. 36/26 on their legal regime. The court held that the rules concerned fell, depending on the provisions in question, within the regulatory domain or the organic framework of finance laws rather than the domain of ordinary law.

We must be precise: the Constitutional Council did not rule that transparency over these appropriations was unnecessary. It ruled on the legal admissibility of the bill and on the division of law-making powers. A legitimate question therefore remains: how can transparency and control of special funds be strengthened in accordance with the Constitution? The special appropriations linked to the Presidency concern expenditure whose legal regime must be clearly defined. Security and confidentiality requirements may justify particular arrangements, but they cannot turn the management of public resources into a subject off-limits to any reflection on accountability and control. The right question, therefore, is not whether the Constitutional Council’s decision can be ignored. It must be respected, and legally appropriate ways must be sought to advance transparency.

If an ordinary law cannot settle certain arrangements, it is for the competent authorities to examine the appropriate legal instruments, in particular the relevant regulatory or organic texts.

And if transparency in public spending is a principle you hold dear, you must defend that requirement consistently, whatever the institution concerned.

It would indeed be contradictory to demand absolute rigour in justifying energy subsidies while refusing, on principle, any debate on the mechanisms for controlling other public appropriations. The same requirements of legality, accountability and sound management must apply to all institutions. Pastef MPs, your responsibility is not limited to the word of your mentor

Ladies and gentlemen, MPs, you were elected to represent the Nation, not to turn your mandate into a mere relay for a party instruction. Your mentor, Mr Ousmane Sonko, may dispute the government’s trade-offs. He may advocate a different budget policy. He may ask for corrections and demand guarantees. But his statements do not exempt Parliament from examining the official

data, distinguishing between budget items and assessing the consequences of the solutions proposed. It is up to you to weigh his arguments against those of the government, to ask for explanations of the discrepancies between the Lfi and the LFR, and to determine which position best meets the requirements of the general interest. Political consistency also demands that one take responsibility for the budget assumptions drawn up when one held government office oneself. The LFR is not an entirely new finance law: it adjusts the initial forecasts to a changed economic situation and to revenue that is not materialising as expected. The increase in the energy envelope, from 250 to 790.3 billion CFA francs, is a major budgetary fact. It does not solve all the country’s difficulties and is not enough to guarantee the protection of every household. But it makes it impossible to honestly reduce the debate to the claim that consumers have been abandoned across the board without examining all the appropriations and their effects.

The debate on special funds also calls for consistency: respecting the Constitutional Council’s decision while continuing, through the appropriate channels, to seek better oversight.

Political responsibility does not consist in always being right in one’s statements; it consists in accepting that the facts, the figures and the consequences of decisions put one’s own arguments to the test.

Senegal needs a Parliament that works, scrutinises, proposes and is accountable. It needs a majority capable of exercising independent judgement, a government capable of justifying its trade-offs and institutions capable of submitting to the same requirements of legality.

The Senegalese did not give you a mandate to watch a loyalty contest between political leaders. They expect results on the cost of living, jobs, education, health and the quality of public services. The time has therefore come to drop the posturing. Let each camp publish its figures, justify its choices and stand by its proposals. Let MPs examine the consequences of the budget scenarios. Let the institutions seek a solution in keeping with the law.

For, in the end, the price of political disagreements must not be paid by citizens, and the search for budgetary truth must never give way to the logic of party machines.

Amadou MBENGUE alias Vieux

Secretary General of the Rufisque Departmental Coordination

Member of the Central Committee and Political Bureau of PIT/Sénégal

Documentary sources

• Directorate General of the Budget — Draft supplementary finance law for 2026: https://www.budget.gouv.sn/articles/public_visualiser/projet-de-loi-de-finances-rectificative-pour-l-annee-2026

• Ansd — National Employment Survey in Senegal, fourth quarter 2025: https://www.vie-publique.sn/documents/10426/enquete-nationale-sur-lemploi-au-senegal-enes-quatrieme-trimestre-2025-ansd

• Announcement of Ousmane Sonko’s position, Seneweb, 19 October 2026: https://seneweb.com/fr/news/actualites/lfr-2026-pastef-ne-votera-pas-le-texte-ousmane-sonko_n_999001130.html

• Rejection of the bill in committee, iGFM, 23 October 2026: https://www.igfm.sn/ui/rejet-du-projet-de-loi-de-finances-rectificative-lfr-2026-par-la-commission-des-finances-de-l-assemblee-nationale

• Constitutional Council of Senegal — decision on the bill on special appropriations, 25 August 2026: https://www.conseilconstitutionnel.sn/