Aldabaiba rejects continued spending by eastern Libya government outside the legal budget
Tripoli based Libyan Prime Minister, Abd Alhamid Aldabaiba, rejected any parallel paths of public spending outside the legal frameworks.
Aldabaiba was responding to the Benghazi based House of Representatives approving on 2 June a budget of LD 69 billion over 3 years (2025 to 2027) for the Libya Development and Reconstruction Fund. The Fund is controlled by the Hafter family and is exempt from any administrative and financial oversight.
Aldabaiba was speaking during a meeting at his Tripoli Cabinet Office last Monday (2 June) with several members of the High State Council, ''to discuss ongoing political and economic developments, and follow up on the government's project to extend stability, unify institutions, and protect the national economy from parallel financial tampering''.
During the meeting, Aldabaiba stressed the government's categorical rejection of any parallel paths of public spending outside the legal frameworks, warning that these practices impose huge financial burdens on the state that are spent in unreal doors, and then re-compensated through public debt, which practically means a deduction from the citizen's pocket and an actual reduction in the value of his income.
The Prime Minister stressed that the Libyan citizen will not benefit from projects implemented at double prices outside the unified financial system, saying: 'What is the use of projects if they are implemented at double prices and deducted from the citizen's pocket through the public debt?!'
In this context, Aldabaiba called on the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ageela Saleh, to disclose the fate of more than 100 billion dinars spent outside the Public Budget during the past two years, stressing that this demand does not come only as a matter of transparency, but as a direct result of the deterioration caused by this spending in the value of the Libyan dinar, and serious repercussions on the citizen's income and market confidence.
The Prime Minister also pointed out that a number of economic experts warned that the adoption of a parallel budget, despite its legal violation, would lead directly to a rise in the exchange rate of the dollar in the parallel market, as a result of the imbalance of financial confidence and increased pressure on reserves, which negatively affects the stability of the currency and the standard of living of citizens.
Aldabaiba concluded the meeting by stressing that the national and legal responsibility falls on all institutions to stop this financial haemorrhage, defend the unity of public finances, and maintain the stability of the economy and the Libyan dinar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
Scottish Sun
a day ago
- Scottish Sun
Families face £20billion tax sting as Government borrowing soars to second highest May level on record
Labour have been accused of 'spending recklessly' TAX YIKES Families face £20billion tax sting as Government borrowing soars to second highest May level on record Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) FAMILIES face a £20billion tax hit after Government borrowing jumped last month, experts warned. The second highest figure on record for May, beaten only during the pandemic, saw borrowing surge to £17.7 billion, higher than forecast by the independent watchdog. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up Receipts for the Treasury were up to £82 billion due to higher income tax and the NI increase that kicked in from April. But with sluggish growth and the high borrowing costs could mean Rachel Reeves could lose her £10 billion financial cushion by the Budget. Thomas Pugh, economist at RSM UK, said the Chancellor may have to raise taxes between £10-£20 billion. He added: 'The under-performance of the economy and higher borrowing costs mean the Chancellor may already have lost the £9.9bn of fiscal headroom that she clawed back in March.' Shadow Chancellor, Sir Mel Stride said: 'Labour is spending recklessly, with no plan to pay for it. "Debt interest now costs us £100bn a year - that's almost twice the defence budget. 'Having turned on the spending taps, Labour have left themselves with only one option and that's to put up your taxes. Treasury Minister Darren Jones insisted the government had 'stabilised the economy and the public finances'. Growth forecast SLASHED in Spring Statement - sparking fears of MORE tax rises
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
ALEX BRUMMER: Treasury is a hurdle for growth
Britain has an overload of budgetary data. As the IMF noted in its recent annual inspection, too frequent fiscal events mean constant policy changes to meet targets. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is victim of her own rules in her determination not to be Liz Truss, who ruined the UK's reputation for probity. The rush to get on top of borrowing and debt was responsible for the ill-fated attack on winter fuel payments which is being reversed. Similarly, the Government is now under pressure from the backbenches to pull back on welfare reforms, introduced in the spring statement. The latest public sector borrowing data shows that in the first two months of the current financial year borrowing is not far off target. At £37.7billion it was less than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted. It would be terrific if one could say this is down to growing GDP. Reality is that Reeves swingeing increase to employers' national insurance contributions brought in 22 per cent more to the Government coffers in May than a year earlier. Early months of the year often give a misleading reading. Tax receipts are boosted by the timing of capital gains payments. Spending by government departments has yet to ramp up. The full impact of the Government's interest rate bill is not felt. It is too soon for anyone in Whitehall to predict victory. The corollary of the stabilised public finances is May retail sales. The slump is a result of higher shop prices and rising uncertainty about jobs. The real worry for a government backing a growth agenda is that it is not happening. The just-published public spending review and infrastructure plans show that capital spending will climb to a peak of 3.9 per cent of output by 2027-28 but then fall back. It is unlikely to produce the transformation that Labour wants before the next election. The Treasury is spellbound by the public finances. That reflects a history of crisis management dating back to the 1976 sterling collapse and refreshed by the 2008 great financial crisis and the Truss episode. I recall during the banking crisis being called by a senior Treasury official who cautioned against big bailouts because it might trigger a run on the pound. The growth agenda doesn't sit easily at the Treasury. The Department for Business ought to be an expansion engine. It is hampered by a reputation as a parking space for sub-octane Cabinet ministers. Incumbent Jonathan Reynolds is no more than a cypher for Downing Street where real polices are set. The long delays in launching an industrial-tech strategy are a case in point. One must reach back to the Harold Wilson government of the 1960s to find a model for industrial innovation with the Department of Economic Affairs headed by George Brown. It eventually collapsed in a heap like its heavy drinking founder. A growth agenda, building on science, tech and AI excellence, needs a powerhouse department of growth and secretary of state capable of resisting Treasury orthodoxy. That person may not exist in a Labour government bereft of commercial experience and top-notch economic thinkers. Andy Burnham, in exile in Manchester, shows signs of the kind of bravery required. That's probably why political rivals would prefer he were not empowered.
