A delicate question has emerged concerning the payment of Senegal’s contribution to the World Health Organization (WHO). It highlighted a certain vagueness in the communication of the ministries involved. The Minister of Health, Dr Ibrahima Sy, in an interview published in a local daily, confirmed that Senegal had an arrears of 104,670,130 FCFA to the WHO, a debt linked to the country’s statutory contribution to the budget. of the organization. However, a week later, two ministries, that of Health and Social Action (MSA) and that of African Integration and Foreign Affairs (MIAA), issued press releases denying this information. This denial, although coming from two different ministries, asserts the same thing, which raises questions about the management of government communication in this matter.
The first question that arises is that of the consistency of communication between ministries. In a context where the press relayed information in a viral manner, did the public authorities act coherently by reacting through two distinct and parallel channels? This denial, issued separately, may give the impression that the ministries concerned are not fully aligned on the issue. Which could harm the credibility of official communication.
On the one hand, there is the Ministry of Health (MSAS) which, through the voice of its minister, first confirmed the arrears owed to the WHO. On the other hand, the two ministries then expressed the same version, denying these arrears. This divergence does not fail to create confusion among public opinion.
In such a situation, it is essential to question the legitimacy of ministries in making such important announcements. Although the question of WHO contribution falls directly under the Ministry of Health, that of the MIAA could also be involved due to its role in the management of international relations and diplomacy, including financing linked to cooperation international.
However, a lack of clarity on the responsibility of each ministry in this matter can lead to a feeling of uncertainty within public opinion, but also on the international scene.
The fundamental question here is why this distribution of roles was not better defined and why the two ministries deemed it necessary to each issue a press release. It is undeniable that harmonization of messages would have made it possible to avoid this confusion. Coordinated communication relayed by a single ministry would have avoided confusion.
Senegal
