What the allegations claim
According to Ekot’s sources, in December 2023 Sweden allegedly redirected 100 million kronor toward projects tied to the circle around Somalia’s prime minister. The Somali government reportedly insisted that this core group gain more influence over the funds than conventional aid allocations. The aim, as described by the reporting, was to channel money to projects close to the prime minister’s inner circle.
What is known about the exchange
As part of the reported deal, Sweden would receive two individuals who had been forcibly deported from Sweden to Somalia. In turn, both sides allegedly sought to keep the arrangement secret. The aid ministry, under Benjamin Dousa, after the agreement was signed, said that the implementation of aid lies with Sida and the Swedish embassies, not the minister alone.
Reactions from Swedish parties
Green Party aid spokesperson Janine Alm Ericson told DN that the matter is extremely serious and that the government must explain what happened. She warned that the case suggests the government has rewarded other regimes to take in their citizens and framed it as a potential corruption scandal, undermining trust in aid. Centerpartiet is set to call the aid minister to the foreign affairs committee, according to SVT. Left Party spokeswoman Lotta Johnsson Fornarve says the use of aid as a kind of bribe is incompatible with aid principles and demands scrutiny from the committee.
The broader implications for aid governance
Analysts say the allegations raise fundamental questions about how Swedish aid money is allocated and monitored. If true, the arrangement would conflict with core aid principles such as transparency, unconditional support, and the avoidance of political bargaining in humanitarian funding. Critics caution that even the appearance of using aid as leverage could erode trust among aid recipients and donors and invite tighter controls or reform of procurement and oversight mechanisms.
What happens next
DN notes that Dousa has been asked to explain the matter, while other parties pursue questions in parliament. The government has not provided a full account, and the case is likely to trigger a formal hearing in the Utrikesutskottet (foreign affairs committee), with several parties seeking answers about decision-making, oversight, and accountability for aid funds.
Conclusion
As the details unfold, the case emphasizes the need for steadfast governance and transparency in international aid. If substantiated, the reported deal would challenge Sweden’s commitment to principled aid delivery and could prompt calls for stronger safeguards to ensure that relief funds serve humanitarian aims rather than political convenience.
