Overview: A Suspicious Turn in Swedish Aid to Somalia
In December 2023, Sweden’s aid agency Sida reportedly became involved in a confidential agreement with Somalia. According to a Swedish public radio report, 100 million kronor set aside for development aid were redirected toward projects closely associated with the Somali prime minister’s administration. The stated quid pro quo was that Sweden would receive two-way deportees—forced removals of Swedish citizens living in Somalia—under a broader political agreement. The episode has ignited questions about aid effectiveness, governance, and the risk of aid funds becoming a tool of political leverage.
The Allegations and What They Entail
The media narrative centers on a deal in which the 100 million kronor would be diverted to two targeted Somali projects. One project reportedly channelled 40 million kronor through a World Bank–linked fund, while another received 60 million kronor through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The most controversial aspect, as described by journalists, is that a large portion of the UNDP funding would pass on to other partners, notably the Somali prime minister’s office. This arrangement raises concerns about the independence of aid delivery, potential conflicts of interest, and the risk that aid funds could influence domestic policy in ways not aligned with the beneficiaries’ needs.
Sida’s Response: What Does the Agency Say?
Ulf Källstig, a representative of Sida, acknowledged knowledge of the 100 million kronor agreement but said he had not seen any formal written contract. He emphasized that the agreement is “between our Foreign Ministry and Somalia,” and he could not describe it. He stressed Sida’s remit: to implement development interventions according to the strategic and regulatory framework it receives, not to comment on political arrangements outside Sida’s mandate.
Asked whether Sida had instructions to keep the deal confidential, Källstig replied that no such instructions had been given. He noted that the agency “has not received instructions to keep it secret” and that their governance is guided by strategy and the regulatory letter. He also highlighted that Sida had helped frame “different options” for how the funds could be used and stated that the selection of the UNDP project was a government decision formalized in a May 2025 amendment to Sida’s regulatory letter. According to him, UNDP was chosen because, in Sida’s assessment, it is a strong partner capable of delivering results and strengthening state-building in Somalia.
Regarding potential alternatives, Källstig indicated that none appeared better from Sida’s perspective. On concerns about links to the Somali prime minister’s office, he argued that governance and state-building required engagement with state actors, and that strengthening UNDP’s involvement could help Somalia manage its state more effectively. He also admitted that while corruption cannot be completely ruled out, Sida cannot guarantee immunity from crime; robust oversight is in place, including monthly follow-ups with UNDP to monitor progress and outcomes.
How the Money Was Allocated and Monitored
Breakdowns show 40 million kronor channelled through a World Bank–affiliated fund, and 60 million kronor allocated through UNDP. Sida maintains that the funding process included a consideration of “alternatives,” with the UNDP option ultimately adopted as the government’s choice. The agency stresses ongoing oversight, reporting, and accountability measures, asserting that aid effectiveness will be judged by results and transparent reporting. Sida points to regular follow-up reviews with UNDP as a key part of ensuring accountability, alongside public reporting on project performance.
Implications for Aid Policy and Public Trust
The episode places Sida and the broader international aid architecture under scrutiny. Critics argue that confidential deals risking proximity to political power can undermine aid effectiveness and erode recipient-country ownership of development strategies. Proponents of the UNDP route suggest that channeling funds through trusted multilateral partners can bolster governance and reduce leakage, provided there is rigorous monitoring and clear, published accountability. The coming days and weeks are likely to feature intensified scrutiny from opposition parties, civil society, and possibly parliamentary inquiries seeking greater transparency and assurance that aid dollars are spent for humanitarian and development goals rather than political leverage.
What to Watch Next
Observers will be looking for more detailed disclosures from Sida and the Foreign Ministry, including publicly accessible project results, audits, and governance assurances. The case could influence how Sweden structures future aid conditionality and partnerships, balancing strategic diplomacy with the imperative of accountable, impact-focused development assistance.
Bottom Line
Allegations of a secret deal linking Swedish aid to deportations, if substantiated, would challenge core norms of transparency and recipient-led development. While Sida defends its governance framework and emphasizes oversight, the situation underscores the fragile balance between security interests, governance objectives, and the overarching aim of delivering aid that strengthens Somali institutions without becoming entangled in internal political dynamics.
