Senelec: Affaire Akilé Union Probe Highlights Privatisation Concerns in Sénégal

• The "Affaire Akilé" at Senelec involved a union driving a controversy over a meter acquisition, effectively bypassing official oversight bodies.
• This contrasts sharply with SENEAU, which executed similar acquisitions without incident due to clear governance structures and defined roles.
• Senelec's long-standing institutional ambiguity and unclear decision-making processes have led to repeated governance crises over decades.
• The union's actions highlight a profound pathology where opaque governance empowers unions to fill oversight voids, investigating and denouncing management decisions.
• This situation underscores the urgent need for structural reforms, including potential privatization, to address chronic governance issues within Senegalese public enterprises.

When institutional ambiguity prevails, a union can become the de facto internal governance body, investigating, denouncing, and mobilizing where formal oversight falters.

A recent incident, dubbed the "Affaire Akilé," has sent shockwaves through the realm of public enterprise governance in Senegal. This controversy centers on a company involved in acquiring electricity meters for Senelec, the national electricity company. Unusually, the dispute was not initiated by shareholders or regulatory bodies, but rather by a labor union.

This situation stands in stark contrast to the experience of SENEAU, the national water utility, which has undertaken similar meter acquisition processes without any institutional upheaval. The absence of controversy at SENEAU, despite engaging in contracts of the same nature, with comparable suppliers, and driven by identical economic logic, highlights a fundamental difference in organizational transparency and operational clarity between the two entities.

At Senelec, the union's intervention went beyond merely exercising its legitimate and legally protected right to alert. It effectively usurped the roles of established control mechanisms, including the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (ARMP), the Court of Accounts, the Board of Directors, and even the General State Inspectorate (IGE). The union conducted its own investigation, publicly announced its findings through media channels, and escalated what would typically be an ordinary management decision into a matter of national concern.

The striking disparity between Senelec and SENEAU reveals a deep-seated issue within Senegalese public enterprises: when governance structures are opaque, labor unions often step in to fill the resulting void. This institutional ambiguity at Senelec has fostered an environment ripe for suspicion, where decision-making perimeters are frequently ill-defined and undocumented.

Senelec, an older and more complex entity responsible for the production, transmission, and distribution of electricity, operates in a sector with significant political, economic, and social implications. Such a critical role should necessitate exceptionally rigorous governance; however, the opposite has been observed. The company's Board of Directors, for instance, reportedly struggles to effectively fulfill its oversight responsibilities.

In this context of institutional uncertainty, the union's proactive stance is not an overreach but a direct consequence of the existing vacuum. When employees lack understanding of management decisions, and rumors proliferate faster than official communications, the union naturally evolves into a de facto internal governance body. It takes on the tasks of investigation, denunciation, and mobilization, not out of excessive zeal, but because no other entity is adequately performing these functions. The "Affaire Akilé" perfectly illustrates this dynamic, with the union's suspicions stemming from years of insufficient governance rather than being fabricated.

In contrast, SENEAU, a more recently established public enterprise formed from the reorganization of Senegal's urban water sector, exemplifies a robust institutional framework. Its governance is built upon three foundational pillars that collectively ensure a strong organizational balance and clear operational guidelines. This structure ensures that each stakeholder understands their specific role and responsibilities.

Within SENEAU, management is responsible for decision-making, the Board of Directors provides supervision, unions engage in negotiation, and control bodies conduct verification. This distinct division of labor, where everyone is aware of their duties, their rationale, and the authorized framework for their actions, prevents the kind of widespread suspicion that plagues Senelec. While no organization is immune to errors, SENEAU's clear delineation of roles prevents uncertainty from becoming a breeding ground for generalized mistrust.

The chronic institutional void and repeated governance crises at Senelec, spanning decades despite numerous reform efforts, point towards a critical structural problem. The "Affaire Akilé" underscores how a lack of clear oversight can empower unions to act as de facto control bodies, effectively turning ordinary management acts into public spectacles.

When institutional ambiguity prevails, a union can become the de facto internal governance body, investigating, denouncing, and mobilizing where formal oversight falters. This ongoing pattern of governance failures, where reforms have consistently failed to achieve lasting normalization, suggests that a more fundamental solution may be necessary. The persistent challenges faced by Senelec, exacerbated by incidents like the "Affaire Akilé," ultimately reinforce the argument that privatization could be the structural solution required to instill lasting order and accountability within such public enterprises in Senegal.

This article highlights critical corporate governance failures within Senegalese public enterprises, demonstrating how a lack of clear oversight can empower unions to act as de facto control bodies and accelerate calls for privatization. Lawyers advising public entities or private investors in Senegal should assess governance structures for opacity and potential union-driven activism, as these factors can lead to significant reputational damage, operational disruption, and increased pressure for structural reforms like privatization.

Source: Original reporting via local analysis