The presentation of the 2025 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure by the Former Unity Labour Party (ULP) administration has returned to the centre of public debate following confirmation by newly elected Prime Minister Godwin Friday that St. Vincent and the Grenadines is carrying an overall public debt estimated at approximately $3.1 billion.
Although the Prime Minister has been careful to state that he is not accusing the Former administration of wrongdoing, the disclosure has prompted renewed examination of how the 2025 Budget was presented to Parliament and the public, and whether the country’s full financial position was communicated with sufficient clarity and context at the time.
The 2025 Estimates, formally titled Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the Year 2025 (With Projections for 2026 and 2027), were passed in the House of Assembly on January 10, 2025. The document outlined total projected revenue and expenditure of $1,849,341,997, divided between approximately $1.15 billion in recurrent spending and about $698.6 million in capital expenditure. The Estimates were presented as a balanced budget, with revenue matching expenditure, and were promoted by the former administration as fiscally responsible and executable without the introduction of new taxes or fees.
The Estimates were laid by then Minister of Finance Camillo Gonsalves, who described the budget as a framework for economic resilience, continued development, and social protection in the face of ongoing global and domestic challenges. Parliamentary debate and public commentary at the time focused largely on sectoral allocations for health, education, infrastructure, housing, and social programmes, as well as assurances that government finances remained under control.
A closer reading of the Estimates, however, shows that while debt servicing costs were clearly included, they were presented largely in technical budgetary terms spread across multiple tables and standard object codes. For the 2025 fiscal year alone, allocations include more than $120 million for interest payments and loan charges, approximately $215 million for amortisation, and $22 million in sinking fund contributions. Combined, debt-related obligations exceed $350 million for the year, representing a significant share of total government expenditure.
These figures appear under various headings such as debt service for domestic and external interest and amortisation, requiring careful cross-referencing to understand their cumulative impact. Nowhere in the opening sections of the Estimates is the country’s total public debt presented as a single, headline figure in plain language. Instead, the most detailed breakdown of public debt is contained in Appendix I: Public Debt, located near the back of the more than 800-page document.
That appendix outlines domestic and external debt obligations and identifies a wide range of regional and international lenders, including the Caribbean Development Bank, the International Development Association, the European Investment Bank, and bilateral partners such as Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. While comprehensive and technically sound, the placement of this information meant that it was unlikely to feature prominently in public discussion unless specifically highlighted during debate or media engagement.
The Estimates also indicate that new borrowing was projected for 2025, even as debt servicing costs continued to rise. Capital receipts for the year include approximately $495 million in external loans and more than $100 million in local loans. These funds were earmarked for capital projects across multiple sectors, including roads, housing, health infrastructure, education, and climate resilience. The former administration maintained that continued borrowing was necessary to sustain development and recovery following repeated natural disasters and global economic disruptions.
Critics now argue that while the annual justification for borrowing was articulated, the cumulative impact of sustained borrowing over time may not have been sufficiently emphasised. The issue has taken on added significance because the 2025 Estimates were presented before a change in administration, making them the final full budget laid by the former ULP government.
Prime Minister Friday’s subsequent confirmation of a $3.1 billion debt stock has led some Vincentians to question whether the Estimates, though technically accurate, may have downplayed the broader debt trajectory by focusing primarily on annual affordability rather than long-term fiscal sustainability.
“This is a major challenge,” he said, while indicating that his government has begun a detailed review of public finances to fully understand the obligations it inherited. He has also acknowledged cash-flow pressures, noting that while public-sector salaries and statutory obligations continue to be met, some payments to local businesses have experienced delays.
The renewed discussion has shifted the focus from whether the debt was disclosed to how it was communicated. Annual budgets, by design, outline projected revenue and expenditure for a single fiscal year. However, some observers argue that when hundreds of millions of dollars annually are devoted to servicing debt, clearer explanation is needed to help the public understand how current spending decisions are linked to long-term financial obligations.
The disclosure has prompted calls for changes in how future budgets are presented, including clearer headline disclosure of total public debt, plain-language explanations of debt servicing costs, and improved public education on the long-term implications of borrowing. Suggestions have also been made that key debt information should be placed more prominently within budget documents rather than confined to appendices and technical schedules.
The government has not indicated whether it will undertake a formal audit or investigation into past budget presentations.
As the new administration continues its review of the country’s finances, the 2025 Estimates and the broader debt picture they sit within are likely to remain central to national discussion. What has become increasingly clear is that while the figures were present in the official documents, questions persist about how fully their significance was conveyed and understood at the time.
