Pringle warns lenders to ‘use extra due diligence’ before issuing loans to government
Opposition Leader Jamale Pringle has urged regional and international lenders to exercise “extra due diligence” before approving new loans to the government, arguing that weak procurement systems and questionable spending practices raise concerns about how borrowed funds are being used.
During his Budget Debate presentation, Pringle said the administration’s claims of strong fiscal performance do not match its continued push to borrow nearly half a billion dollars for the 2026 financial year.
He warned that institutions financing these loans — including multilateral partners — should not rely solely on the government’s assurances.
Pringle said lenders should apply “extra due diligence” to ensure that any new borrowing is properly monitored and disbursed only for the purposes stated.
He tied the warning to what he described as repeated procurement failures, pointing to years in which actual spending on government vehicles far exceeded what Parliament had approved.
He argued that such discrepancies demonstrate “gross incompetence” and raise legitimate questions about oversight and financial discipline across key ministries.
The Opposition Leader also linked his concerns to the widely discussed vehicle-purchase controversy, saying procurement systems must be scrutinized before additional credit is extended.
He cautioned that lenders should not assume that the government’s reported surpluses reflect available resources, adding that unpaid obligations to teachers, contractors, vendors, and landlords create a misleading picture of the nation’s finances.
Pringle said the borrowing requests — including loans for roadworks and major capital projects — make little sense if the government’s projected surplus is accurate, insisting that lenders should investigate whether the administration is using borrowing to mask cash-flow constraints.
The Budget Debate continues as government ministers prepare to defend the borrowing programme and respond to Pringle’s criticisms.
