Background: a confidential December 2023 arrangement
Sweden’s government is under scrutiny over a reported, confidential arrangement linked to Somalia’s handling of returned migrants. According to Sveriges Radio, in December 2023 about 100 million kronor were redirected from existing aid to projects that were considered to align with the Somali prime minister’s priorities. In exchange, Sweden hoped for Somalia’s willingness to take back Somali nationals who had been forcibly expelled from Sweden. The claim is not supported by a formal treaty, but rather described as a bilateral understanding between the Swedish government and the Somali authorities.
What is claimed and who is involved
The central allegation is that aid funds were steered toward initiatives “close to” the Somali leadership. Sweden’s ministers and officials insist the money did not go to the prime minister, did not flow into the government’s budget, and did not directly benefit a politician. Aid Minister Benjamin Dousa (M) has framed the decision as part of a broader policy to improve return arrangements, rather than as a payment to any individual or party. He says the dialogue with Somalia was guided by needs on the receiving end and a shared interest in repatriations: “The funds have not gone to the prime minister. They have not gone to any politician. They have not gone to the state budget.”
The government’s framing
Dousa argues that what Sweden calls a “dialog with the recipient country” was crucial to ensuring that resources reach where they are most needed. He describes the process as non-formal and practical: “It’s not a formal treaty, but an agreement that we will cooperate.” He stresses that the aim is to support return efforts and to address concrete needs in Somalia, rather than subsidize a political elite.
Finland’s contrasting path and international context
The situation stands in contrast to Finland, which halted any further cooperation after failing to secure a similar agreement on repatriations. The Finnish decision stopped projects worth roughly 8–9 million euros annually. Finland’s approach reflects a different risk calculus about conditional aid and accountability, illustrating how European countries can diverge in how they pursue repatriation-linked aid strategies.
Opposition concerns and questions of accountability
The lack of a formal written agreement has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures. Morgan Johansson, a spokesperson for foreign affairs for the Social Democrats, described the absence of a formal document as troubling: “If there is no formal agreement, there is no clear basis for disbursing 100 million kronor.” He called for a thorough, ground-up inquiry into the matter. In response to these concerns, the foreign affairs committee on Thursday decided to summon Benjamin Dousa and Sida’s chief Jakob Granit to question them about the Somali funds.
Parliamentary scrutiny and transparency demands
In December 2023, the government’s handling of the Somali funds has become a topic in parliamentary fora. The international affairs committee’s questions—spurred by opposition demands—focus on how the deal was structured, the absence of a written agreement, and the justifications for the specific allocation of funds. The committee’s upcoming hearings aim to illuminate who benefited from the arrangements and on what basis the funds were directed to “near-premier”-aligned initiatives.
What exists on the ground: returns and reporting gaps
How many Somalis have returned under this arrangement remains unclear. Sweden’s Sveriges Radio notes that 28 individuals were forcibly repatriated during 2024, but government officials have declined to publish a detailed tally or timeline. The discrepancy between reported outcomes and official disclosures has intensified calls for greater transparency and a formal, auditable framework governing aid-linked repatriations.
Implications for Swedish aid policy
The Somali case has become a live test of Sweden’s aid policy: can aid be used as leverage to achieve humanitarian and asylum objectives without compromising transparency and accountability? Proponents argue that such agreements can yield tangible returns by enabling safe and orderly returns, while critics warn that opaque arrangements risk wasting funds and eroding trust with partner countries and Swedish taxpayers. As the debate continues, observers will be watching how this issue is resolved in Parliament and what reforms, if any, the government may implement to strengthen oversight of aid and repatriation programs.
