Jean Kaseya (Africa CDC): "The 700 million we are looking for are not with the government, but with the partners"

The Director General of Africa CDC raised concerns that the response to the Ebola epidemic in the DRC did not account for more than $700 million in mobilized funds. The mobilization process began with commitments, such as an initial $1.6 billion commitment received from African heads of state and external partners. Of this total, $962 million has been disbursed, representing nearly 58%. The Director General indicated a gap between the disbursed funds and the amounts that should have reached the government or implementing partners, estimating this discrepancy to be over $700 million, including unspent funds held by partners.
The mobilization process involved multiple stages of pledges, including an initial meeting followed by a larger appeal involving the US government and G20 participation. The Director General suggested that traceability requires ensuring partners report how funds are used, necessitating a mechanism where receiving partners justify expenditures to the government. On the ground, responsibility for payments, such as salaries, rests with the state officials, while programmatic activities are shared between the government and partners. The concern is centered on a lack of transparency regarding the flow of these funds among various actors.

* Five months after the Ebola epidemic declaration in the DRC, the Director General of Africa CDC raised concerns regarding the mobilization of more than $700 million for the response.
* An initial commitment was $1.6 billion received from African heads of state and external partners.
* Of this amount, $962 million has been disbursed.
* The disbursement covers commitments made dating back to September.
* $962.66 million has been disbursed by 41 donors, counting Africa as a single entity.
* The government currently knows about $228 million provided by some partners.
* $127 million of this amount would have already been used, with another $100 million remaining with partners.
* A gap between disbursed funds and reported figures is estimated to be more than $700 million, including the $100 million held by partners.
* The United States accounted for more than $462 million of the $962 million disbursed.
* Traceability involves recording donor commitments, disbursement amounts, and tracking where funds went to personnel, centers, training, or distribution.
* State officials are responsible for paying civil servants' salaries.

The narrative reveals a systemic failure in accountability structures rather than simple embezzlement. The core tension lies between the declared financial flow and the lack of verifiable tracing mechanisms, which shifts responsibility onto implementing partners. The Director General’s insistence on traceability—linking a dollar from donor to caregiver or patient through documented expenditure—points toward a deficit in governance protocols that existed before the emergency. This mirrors historical patterns where external actors operate with perceived autonomy, leading to what the speaker terms "little kings" behavior among partners.
The pattern suggests that when established governmental oversight is weak, and when international funding bypasses direct government budgetary control (as seen in the US-partnered distribution), financial opacity flourishes. The argument shifts from *what* money exists to *who* controls the mechanism for justification. The failure is not necessarily about missing funds but about the absence of a shared, mandated system for reporting, which allows operational realities to obscure accountability. The proposed solution—forcing public disclosure and establishing an African blacklist—is an attempt to impose governance structures onto an existing landscape where power dynamics are heavily skewed toward external implementers.
What safeguards must be established so that future epidemic preparedness prioritizes institutional capacity over immediate resource allocation? If the government is tasked with financing preparation, as suggested by the Director General, how can it effectively exert control over expenditures when operational realities exist outside its direct line of budgetary sight? Does creating a visible mechanism for tracing funds fundamentally shift the power balance away from implementing bodies and toward the state institutions responsible for public welfare?