John Pa Baimba Sesay: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 29 December 2025:
In presenting the 2026 Budget Statement to Parliament, the Minister of Finance described it as a “pro-poor and pro-people budget”. As a citizen, I reviewed the statement, guided both by the promises made and by the realities of our recent past.
The Government recommitted itself to “improving domestic revenue mobilisation through tax measures that are pro-poor and pro-business,” “leveraging innovative revenue sources,” and “consolidating public finances through prudent expenditure management while protecting pro-poor expenditure programmes.”
The budget further promises continued investment in human capital development to build a healthy, productive, and skilled workforce, alongside infrastructure investments in roads, energy, water supply, and technology aimed at improving the business environment and attracting investment.
On paper, these intentions are commendable. However, for instance, the growing Kush and broader drug crisis poses a serious threat to the development of our human capital.
When enforcement efforts target only the small players while allowing major actors to go unchecked, it raises serious questions about the depth of our commitment to addressing the drugs menace.
Good intentions alone do not make a budget pro-poor. I hesitate to describe the 2026 Budget as such because, over the years, there has been limited evidence of deliberate and sustained action to reduce poverty and inequality through budgetary choices that clearly prioritise low-income and vulnerable sections of society.
We must move beyond rhetorical commitments to measurable outcomes. A genuinely pro-poor budget is judged not by language, but by impact.
To what extent has government increased funding to sectors that matter most to the poor, such as primary healthcare, social protection and safety nets, water and sanitation, and affordable housing?
For many citizens, access to basic services, particularly safe and reliable water supply, good road networks and public housing remain a daily struggle.
Government assurances about improving the livelihoods of the urban poor, especially those living in informal settlements, have largely remained aspirational. Rural communities continue to be underserved, while women and girls particularly in remote areas remain among the most vulnerable.
A visit to communities such as Alkalia in Koinadugu starkly illustrates the hardship endured by women and girls due to poor infrastructure, limited public services, and inadequate access to opportunities.
Poor road networks, regrettably, remain a defining feature of Sierra Leone’s development challenge.
To truly meet people’s needs, a pro-poor budget must go beyond headline economic growth and confront a fundamental question: who benefits from public spending?
Growth that disproportionately benefits a few, while many struggle to meet basic needs, cannot credibly be described as pro-poor.
Moreover, current revenue measures do not yet reflect a clearly progressive tax system. How effectively are higher earners contributing proportionately more?
The existing tax regime continues to place a disproportionate burden on low-income households, with limited and poorly targeted exemptions to protect the poor.
Increased import and clearance costs for businesses, for example, are rarely absorbed by importers; instead, these costs are passed on to consumers, disproportionately affecting those with the least capacity to pay.
A truly pro-poor budget should also strengthen local governance and service delivery. This requires adequate and timely transfer of funds to local councils and municipalities, where essential services such as waste management, community health, and urban services directly reach citizens.
In this regard, the Ministry of Finance should clarify whether this commitment is being honoured, particularly considering reports that statutory subventions to local councils have not been fully transferred during the year.
Rather than prioritising high-cost infrastructure that benefits a narrow segment of society, a pro-poor approach would expand access to maternal and primary healthcare, subsidise waste collection in low-income communities, and make significant investments in affordable public transport for informal and low-income workers.
The government wage bill is projected at NLe 7.9 billion (4.2 percent of GDP) in 2026, up from an estimated NLe 7.2 billion (4.3 percent of GDP) in 2025.
On the surface, this appears encouraging, particularly with the planned recruitment of 2,500 teachers, the reassessment and promotion of 2,000 teachers in 2026, the implementation of the recruitment of 3,000 health workers approved in 2025 effective July 2026 and the additional recruitment of 700 civil servants, also effective July 2026.
While these commitments are welcome, their true value will ultimately be measured by how they translate into improved livelihoods. One can only hope that the 20 percent salary increase for civil servants, scheduled to take effect in September 2026, will meaningfully improve take-home pay at the end of each month.
But it remains difficult to reconcile these announcements with the lived realities of workers. The much-publicised increase in the national minimum wage from NLe 800 to NLe 1,200, effective April 2026 falls far short of meeting basic living costs.
In practical terms, this amount does not even cover the cost of daily transportation, let alone food, housing, healthcare, and other essentials. The poor will continue to suffer.
Against this backdrop, it is reasonable to question whether these measures genuinely align with the government’s claim of presenting a pro-poor budget, or whether they merely repackage incremental adjustments that fail to keep pace with the rising cost of living.
Until these priorities are clearly reflected in both budget allocations and implementation, it remains difficult to describe the 2026 Budget as genuinely pro-poor, regardless of how well its intentions are articulated.
Be the first to comment