Author
By Sallieu T. Kamara
The importance of adequate preparation, laced with a well-coordinated response in the fight against epidemic outbreaks of any sort cannot be overstressed. These are critical factors that have the potential to not only blunt the efforts of a country or people to rapidly combat epidemics, but to also weaken the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. This explains clearly why senior officials of the United Nations World Health Organization did not mince their words about the significance of proper coordination in combating epidemics whilst making an appeal in early September 2014 for a global response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
Both WHO boss Margaret Chan and the UN Ebola envoy David Navarro were in total agreement that effective and proper “coordination saves lives and improves efficiency”. This brings me to the ongoing struggle by the government, its partners and the entire citizenry to combat the spread of Ebola in Sierra Leone. The Government officially confirmed the Ebola outbreak in the country in May 2014. Since then the disease has been devastatingly wreaking mayhem across the country, save for Koinadugu district. Four months into the outbreak, poor and ineffective coordination has already manifested itself in various ways.
Honestly, they started very late, and very sluggishly. But since the fight against Ebola gathered pace, the government has put a lot of resources into it. But the question is whether or not these resources were properly coordinated and effectively utilised. Yes, there are structures created right across the board. At the helm of these structures are the Presidential Taskforce on Ebola which President Ernest Bai Koroma himself presides over, and the Emergency Operations Centre, which, I understand, handles all technical matters and coordinates all Ebola activities across the country. These structures are replicated in all the districts. Their memberships are varied and diverse. I am sure it was a deliberate attempt by the architects of these structures to ensure that varied experiences, knowledge and skills are fully tapped into.
This is a laudable strategy, as it makes coordination at the policy level a lot better and inclusive. But down at the implementation level the process is loaded with serious coordination challenges. The manner in which the government disburses funds to the different actors that are involved in the fight against Ebola is what some sections of our society believe is largely responsible for these challenges.
In a press statement dated 11 August 2014, the government, through the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, announced the disbursement of Le7.9 Billion to different actors for different purposes relating to the fight against Ebola. This is a huge amount of money by every standard. But many observers are still completely baffled over the government’s rationale behind the distribution of the money separately to the District Health Management Teams, hospitals and treatment centres. Aside this one-fell-swoop disbursement, the government has also provided large sums of money to different non-state actors to undertake Ebola-related activities in different parts of the country. This is also good because the fight against Ebola requires all hands to be on deck.
But the government established the District Taskforce Teams across the country, tasked with the responsibility of coordinating all Ebola and Ebola-related activities in their respective districts. One would have expected that for better coordination and proper accountability these monies should have gone into a “basket fund” specifically established in each district for this purpose. The District Taskforce Teams should manage these funds; and all monies withdrawn from it must be vetted by the Taskforce Teams based on clearly-defined activities that are sure to meaningfully contribute towards the eradication of Ebola from the country. In essence, it should be specific activity-tied funding. Establishing a well-managed ‘basket fund’ in each district will help to ensure collective planning and collecting actions by all stakeholders.
On the other hand, by distributing the monies in the manner in which it was done, the government seems to sanction individualism and disconnectedness amongst the very structures that they have established for the fight against the Ebola disease. One does not need to look farther afield to prove or disprove my assertion. Today, the whole country is inundated with a flurry of activities that are poorly-designed, doubtlessly out of desperation to give justification for the use of the ‘Ebola money’. Sensitisation and awareness-raising have become over-saturated with Ebola activities across the country, whilst inactivity and neglect are weighing down heavily on other equally critical areas of the fight to combat the disease such as logistics and personnel welfare. This has left many people pondering whether the real reason for the seemingly mad rush for the ‘Ebola money’ by some stakeholders is, in actual fact, to contribute towards arresting the spread of the disease, or just a mere ploy to garner ill-gotten money.
It is always easy at times like this for people and institutions to collect huge public resources and say “oh, I will do this or I will do that”. But it is the duty of the government to ensure that those collecting these monies have the capacity and capability and honesty to do exactly what they have committed themselves to doing. The judicious use of public resources starts right from here.
We have an abundance of local goodwill to fight Ebola as demonstrated by the several donations doles out by companies and individuals towards government’s efforts to eradicate the menace. But we seem short of strength and innovative ideas in effective coordination and proper utilisation of the resources that we are generating. Indeed, we are at a critical stage in our struggle to control the spread of Ebola, as the disease continues to defy all efforts to let up. If anything, it continues to escalate. This calls for improved coordination, concerted efforts of all stakeholders and effective integration. These are virtues that will certainly serve as a plus in the fight, and the lack of it, a minus; a serious one at that.
To further add to this conundrum, the government has gone ahead to provide the 124 Members of Parliament with a whopping Le 63 million each, to go back to their constituencies and provide political leadership in the fight against the disease. Again, these monies were given directly to MPs without any reference to the structures the government has already established at the district level. The issue here is not about the quantum of money the government gave to MPs - and it does not also matter whether it is part of the re-established Constituency Development Fund or not. Rather, the need for effective coordination, collaboration and cohesion in the utilisation of Ebola funds, as well as the necessity to avert conflict of interests by the different actors.
In fact, it is now common knowledge that the MPs have, overnight, assumed the uncharacteristic role of direct activity implementers. This begs the question of who will provide oversight function on the use of the Ebola funds. Do you see how increasingly it’s becoming difficult to properly monitor the Ebola resources so that the nation will get the best out of them?
In all functional democracies, parliament has certain functions that are sacrosanct, and they must not be comprised – they represent the people, they make laws, and they provide oversight. Oversight is the means through which parliament holds the executive accountable for its actions and to ensure that it implements policies in accordance with the laws and the budget that parliament itself passes. This role is extremely important, particularly in times like this, because it is only through oversight that parliament can ensure a balance of power and assert its role as the defender of the people’s interests. This is an indicator of good governance and a cornerstone of democracy.
This is why I believe it is totally inappropriate for MPs to be personally involved in the rolling-out of petty activities such as the provision of chlorine, buckets, printing of t-shirts and sensitisation, among others. In fact, reports being monitored in the local media suggest that these monies have created serious cracks within the hierarchy of our political parties, particularly the ruling All People's Congress, at constituency level, with the potential to obliterate the political careers of several MPs and councillors. There is moaning and groaning all over about the opaque manner in which some MPs have utilised the money.
This clearly justifies the fears of many people that these monies might not be fully used for the intended purposes. Personally, I would have loved to see the government provide money to MPs only to facilitate their movement to their constituencies to provide effective political leadership and to carry out parliamentary oversight functions. Let other actors take responsibility for direct implementation of Ebola activities in their constituencies so that there will be checks and balances.
In conclusion, I want to remind all those who have received money or continue to receive money from the government and its partners to undertake Ebola and Ebola-related activities that the entire nation is watching and monitoring them. When the day of reckoning comes, we all shall give account of our stewardship. Now, the night is long and some people take liberty of it. But no matter how long it is, the day is sure to come.
(C) Politico, 11/09/14
