Response to interpellation 2025/26:149 on the Government Offices' handling of information to the judiciary
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the Government Offices' handling of information provided to the judiciary. S argues that the Government Offices have provided an incorrect account and withheld evidence from the Security Service 1. S believes that the Prime Minister's leadership was lacking, that an administrative failure occurred at the highest level 2 and that the Prime Minister's handling is troubling 3 2. S wants the Riksdag to investigate this and that the Prime Minister should be held accountable for their performance of duties 1 3 2. M argues that the Government Offices' employees have the same obligation to provide information as everyone else 4. M emphasizes that there is a legal obligation for everyone in the Government Offices to cooperate openly in the judiciary's investigations 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Laila Naraghi has asked the Prime Minister why he has not acted to ensure that the Cabinet Office and the Government Offices provide correct information to the Swedish Security Service, whether any measures have been taken to change the routines in this regard, and if no measures have been taken, why not.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
First, it is important to emphasize that legal proceedings are conducted independently by judicial authorities, and that means I cannot comment further on an ongoing trial. But on a more general level, it can be stated that during a preliminary investigation, it is not uncommon for the status of the investigation to change as new information emerges.
When it comes to the Government Offices and its employees, the same obligations as for everyone else apply to provide information to law enforcement authorities within the scope of a preliminary investigation. There is therefore no reason to consider any special routines beyond those that already follow from law and applicable regulations.
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the government has full confidence that the Government Offices act in accordance with these obligations.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Security Policy Unit and Chief Prosecutor Per Lindqvist have investigated the suspicions of crime against a former security advisor at the Government Offices, Government Offices. It is, therefore, about Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson's best friend Henrik Landerholm.
The Swedish Security Service establishes in its preliminary investigation that the Government Offices have provided an "incorrect account" of the sequence of events.
One of the errors has concerned the timeline and the handling of information that has been submitted to the Government Offices. When the Government Offices were to hand over emails to the Swedish Security Service regarding this, and the Swedish Security Service was to collect evidence, this email was excluded. The Government Offices thus refrain from handing over evidence to a law enforcement authority.
Regarding the question of whether the Government Offices have withheld evidence from the Security Service, the chief prosecutor has said: "It lies outside the scope of the criminal investigation we are conducting, and I therefore have no comments on this."
Mr. Speaker! It is not the responsibility of the Security Unit to bring charges against or exercise supervision over the government and individual ministers. That responsibility lies with the Riksdag, as the supervision of the government and individual ministers falls upon the Riksdag, in accordance with the Instrument of Government. It is called scrutiny. It therefore falls upon the Riksdag itself to carry out those parts of the scrutiny that fall outside the judiciary's administration of justice.
In view of this, an interpellation has been submitted to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson regarding why the Prime Minister has not acted to ensure that the Cabinet Office and the Government Offices do not provide incorrect accounts to the Swedish Security Service.
I personally think the question in the interpellation is unnecessarily complicated. But the formulation is based on the requirements that the Chamber Office places on us members so that we are allowed to pose our questions to the government.
Mr. Speaker! Just this question, I can state, was the subject of a longer discussion with the Chamber Office, but in the end, I was nevertheless allowed to pose the question to the Prime Minister. This is good, because the possibility of posing an interpellation is constitutionally protected as it falls to the Riksdag to scrutinize the government.
For the sake of transparency for those who follow the debate – and I know there are many who do – and who are not entirely familiar with the Riksdag's vocabulary, it should be said that the Chamber Office here in the Riksdag operates under the Speaker of the Riksdag, Andreas Norlén.
Mr. Speaker! I personally think the question is unnecessarily complicatedly formulated. Fundamentally, it is about why the Prime Minister has allowed this to happen. With the words in the Security Service's own preliminary investigation, the Government Offices have provided an incorrect account of the sequence of events. The Prime Minister is the head and thus has a responsibility.
Mr. Speaker! I note that the Minister for Justice does not provide any answer to this question. I do, however, note that he says that he cannot comment on an ongoing legal process. That is not what I have requested either.
The question of why the Prime Minister's Chancellery provided an incorrect account to the Security Service – it is Säpo's own words regarding what occurred – is not the subject of any legal process. It is also not, as I understand it, something that is part of the ongoing legal process.
It is not the responsibility of the National Security Unit to bring charges against or exercise supervision over the government and individual ministers. That responsibility lies with the Riksdag, as the supervision of the government and the scrutiny of the government and individual ministers falls upon us in the Riksdag.
Mr. Speaker! With this clarification, I ask the Minister for Justice to answer the question in the interpellation that he has been sent to answer here today. Why has the Prime Minister not acted to ensure that the Council of State and the Government Offices do not provide incorrect accounts to the Swedish Security Service?
Or more simply put: Why has the Prime Minister allowed this to happen? Why has the Prime Minister's Chancellery not assisted the Security Service with what the agency has requested?
Why has the Prime Minister's Office provided an incorrect account to a judicial authority? Very many people want answers to that. It is completely unreasonable that Sweden's Prime Minister has that type of leadership for his office and his employees.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Laila Naraghi asks many questions that she herself answers, if I may put it that way. She answers them in a rather insinuating manner and without any closer basis for the conclusions.
It is a self-evident starting point for all parties involved that one shall provide correct information to the justice system. It obviously needs to be said, but it is clearly a matter of course.
Regarding the fact that one cannot go into those questions in more detail, I do not think it is strange at all. What is included and what is not included in the preliminary investigation, and which circumstances and pieces of information are included in it, neither I nor Laila Naraghi have any insight into.
It is fortunate that, because we have an independent judiciary. There are preliminary investigations that are handled by judicial authorities and not by either ministers or members of parliament.
The only thing we know is that an indictment has been filed. We have a judgment from the District Court, where Henrik Landerholm was acquitted. It has been appealed, and it is an ongoing legal process. With that, I and, I believe, also Laila Naraghi can content ourselves for the day.
Regardless of what the Chamber Secretariat requires of Members of Parliament regarding how they should formulate their questions, I want to emphasize myself that I think it is good that the questions are discussed both here in the Chamber and certainly also in other contexts in the Riksdag, where they will be subject to discussion and scrutiny.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! For the sake of clarity: We are not discussing Henrik Landerholm here. I stated that it was what it is about and what the information we are discussing concerns, in order to put it into its context so that one might perhaps be able to understand the context.
What we are discussing here today – what the interpellation is about – is the routines at the Prime Minister's Office. It concerns why the Prime Minister's Office and staff have provided an incorrect account to the Swedish Security Service.
Law enforcement authorities have themselves stated that this is not included in the criminal investigation. That is quite rightly the case, as the supervision and scrutiny of the Prime Minister falls on us in the Riksdag. That is why I, as a Member of Parliament, have submitted an interpellation, entirely in accordance with the constitution, to the Prime Minister regarding his performance of duties.
It falls on me and on us in the Riksdag to do it. We have a distribution of responsibility in our parliamentary group for that. This is completely outside the legal process that is ongoing. It is not about that legal process or any legal process that is ongoing. It is about the Swedish Prime Minister's performance of duties. It falls on us, according to the Instrument of Government, according to the constitution, to handle it. It is, therefore, the Riksdag's task.
Mr. Speaker! The interpellation also contained questions as to whether the Prime Minister has taken any measures to change the routines at the Government Offices and the Government Offices in light of what occurred and, if so, which ones. To this, the Minister for Justice answered that it has not occurred.
The explanation for this is, according to the Minister for Justice's response, that the Government Offices and its employees have the same obligations as others to provide information to law enforcement authorities within the framework of a preliminary investigation and that there is therefore no reason to consider any special routines beyond those that already follow from law and current regulations.
Mr. Speaker! Now, the situation is that the Swedish Security Service itself has stated that the Government Offices have provided an incorrect account to the Swedish Security Service. The Government Offices have therefore, according to the Swedish Security Service, not followed the law and the applicable regulatory framework. The Prime Minister's Office has not provided the information that should have been provided. Obviously, there are deficiencies in the Prime Minister's performance of his duties and in his office. This cannot simply be brushed aside or explained away.
Mr. Speaker! Kristersson's handling is problematic. I hope that the Minister for Justice does not intend to cover for it. The Swedish Security Service has established that the Government Offices have not provided accurate information. The Swedish Security Service is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, which the Minister for Justice heads.
I assume that the Minister for Justice stands up for his own authority. I have high expectations of the Minister for Justice's integrity. The Swedish Security Service has, as stated, concluded that the Government Offices have provided them with an incorrect account. So we cannot have that. The Prime Minister's Office must be persuaded to provide correct information. Here, the Minister for Justice has a responsibility to shoulder.
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Justice and I were just here before a debate on another interpellation posed to the Prime Minister regarding the handling of the surrender of documents. There, the Prime Minister's Chancellery has also shown extensive deficiencies, but here measures have been taken to at least partially improve the situation. Why is this not also being done regarding the Prime Minister's Chancellery's deficient handling of providing information to law enforcement authorities within the framework of a preliminary investigation in the same way as we went through in the previous debate?
Mr. Speaker! I would therefore like to ask the question: Will the Prime Minister take any measures to change the routines so that law enforcement authorities receive a share of the tasks that are to be handed over to them?
The Swedish Security Service is, as stated, placed under the Minister for Justice. I assume that the Minister for Justice stands up for his own agency and its ability to receive correct information.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Laila Naraghi for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
Of course, I stand up for the authorities that fall under the Ministry of Justice. I do so primarily by safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. In that regard, it is very central that I, in my role, do not intervene and express views on the handling of individual cases and especially not when there are ongoing legal proceedings.
Just to make it very clear: No, it is clear that the questions we are discussing today – the oversight task that falls on the Riksdag – are not part of the criminal case. But the circumstances and the facts we are talking about are part of an ongoing legal process, and that is the reason why I do not go into more detail on these questions.
Regarding the question of obligations to provide correct information to the judiciary, I can state on a general level that the legislation and the other regulations applicable in the area apply equally to all citizens, including those active in the Government Offices.
I also want to emphasize that my confidence in the Government Offices' will to contribute in a correct manner to the judiciary's legitimate tasks is unbroken. Then, there may certainly still be reasons to consider whether things can be done even better. But we will nevertheless return to the fact that the circumstances we are talking about here are the subject of an ongoing legal process, and against that background, it is neither appropriate nor right for me to go into it in more detail.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I agree on the importance, the significance, and the necessity for our democracy of an independent judiciary. Here, I am of course in complete agreement with the Minister for Justice.
Mr. Speaker! It should be the Prime Minister who stood here today. It should be he who answered for his office. But now that is not the case. The interpellation was submitted to the Prime Minister two weeks ago, and it is concrete and simple questions to answer. Still, the Prime Minister has sent the Minister for Justice here, a Minister for Justice who comes with brief answers. And it is perhaps not so strange, for until now the Minister for Justice has not been involved in this national security scandal.
It is, as has been said, problematic that the Prime Minister is not the one standing here today. Sweden's Riksdag and the Swedish public have the right to expect a Prime Minister who performs their duties. This includes respecting Swedish law, including the principle of public access, which we discussed here earlier today, and the obligation to provide information to law enforcement authorities. Here, Kristersson's office, his staff, and his leadership have fallen short.
Säpo itself notes that the Government Offices have provided an incorrect account. It falls on us in the Riksdag to examine this. It is uncomfortable to imagine that we have a Prime Minister who, when his office receives questions from the Security Service, withholds information. What should children and young people think when they see that the country's Prime Minister and his office behave in this way?
Mr. Speaker! I remember how, in the early 2000s as an SSU member, I was impressed by Gunnar Strömmer when he, as former MUF chairman, founded Centrum för rättvisa, which took on the authorities and the state. I agreed with him on this, and perhaps it has to do with the fact that I come from Småland, with the historical heritage we have there.
I know that many Swedes, across the entire country, are horrified by how Kristersson has acted. I truly hope that Gunnar Strömmer does not lend himself to defending this administrative failure, because a failure at the highest level is what it is. We in the Riksdag must be allowed to scrutinize it. The Prime Minister should be here.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Laila Naraghi, for today's discussion!
It is obvious that the Riksdag's scrutiny of this issue and of all other issues concerning the Prime Minister and his exercise of power is fully legitimate. All possible tools are available there. Interpellations are one such tool, and I imagine that the Committee on the Constitution's scrutiny will certainly cover these issues. It is clear that it is fully legitimate.
What is possibly a bit complicating in the stage of the process we find ourselves in is that the circumstances we are talking about are the subject of an ongoing legal process. I mean that it is then quite reasonable for me to take a step back and, on a general level, say that it is clear that there is a legal obligation that covers everyone, including everyone active in a government office – and then we are not just talking about non-political civil servants but, of course, also about those who are politically elected, appointed, or employed – to cooperate in a fully open and transparent manner in relation to the judiciary's investigations.
It is also very central that everyone in these roles respects ongoing legal processes because it concerns the integrity of the justice system. It is also about a trust that all essential circumstances will be illuminated in a good way within the framework of these legal processes.
If, in addition to that, there are questions that are more about political accountability, it is quite right that these questions belong here in the Riksdag. This is part of that, and there will surely be more occasions. If the Prime Minister is called to the Committee on the Constitution, one will have every opportunity there to ask the questions one considers justified in this and other related matters.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.