Senegal‘s national Recovery plan unearths Shocking Real Estate Scandal: millions Lost on Unnecessary Rent Payments
Dakar, Senegal – President Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s unveiling of the National Recovery Plan has brought to light a staggering mismanagement of public funds, centering on the continued payment of rent for a state-acquired building. The scandal, which has ignited public outrage, involves an R+8 building with a basement, initially slated to house the High Council of Local Authorities (HCCT).
Acquired by the state in 2018 for a hefty 14.4 billion FCFA (later adjusted to 20 billion FCFA including all taxes), the building was already being rented by the government since 2016 at a monthly rate of 40 million FCFA. In a baffling turn of events, rental payments persisted for six years after the state officially owned the property, bleeding nearly 2.8 billion FCFA between July 2018 and May 2024.
The sheer absurdity of the situation has left many questioning the efficacy of internal control mechanisms and the political accountability for such a profound administrative failure. How could a building owned by the state continue to incur regular rental expenses without any intervention for such an extended period?
Socialist Party Denies Responsibility Amidst “Diluted Responsibilities and Transparency Deficit”
In the wake of the revelations, the Socialist Party, which led the HCCT during the period in question, has publicly distanced itself from the scandal. Party spokesperson Abdoulaye Vilane vehemently refuted any role or responsibility, stating that the management of state real estate assets falls under the purview of the State Built Heritage Agency and the Ministry of Finance for acquisitions.”Socialist leaders have never had a hand on the real estate operations undertaken by the State,” vilane declared in a public statement on August 1st. He argued that any attempt to attribute blame to the party for this mismanagement would be a baseless accusation, disconnected from administrative realities.
The case starkly highlights a persistent opacity in the management of public resources, particularly concerning state housing. The lack of clarity surrounding the actual beneficiaries of these post-acquisition rents and the payment proofs underscores systemic flaws that frequently enough operate outside conventional budgetary rules. Even without proven intent for diversion, the magnitude of the financial loss raises critical questions about the validation process for public spending.
Citizens are now demanding comprehensive explanations regarding state financial circuits. How could such substantial sums be disbursed without triggering any institutional alerts? Who ultimately received these rents paid after the building’s acquisition? And crucially, why was the initial rental contract not suspended or renegotiated following the purchase?
The promise of a “rupture” by the new management will be measured by its ability to provide concrete answers to these pressing questions. in a nation increasingly demanding rigor and accountability, every billion lost without explanation represents a significant breach of trust between the state and its citizens. The HCCT affair is poised to become a defining illustration of this ongoing struggle for transparency and responsible governance.
