Response to interpellation 2025/26:286 on damage assessments linked to the national security advisor
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns damage assessments linked to the national security advisor. M argues that they have answered questions regarding content, dating, and registration 1 2 3 and that no one is obstructing the Riksdag's scrutiny 2 3. M emphasizes that the Committee on the Constitution handles scrutiny and practice regarding ongoing legal proceedings 2 3 and that it is consistent with the democratic rule of law to answer questions 4. S argues that the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions and that the Minister for Justice is obstructing scrutiny 5. S claims that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice are ignoring the Freedom of the Press Act and the Act on Public Employment 5 6. S argues that the Prime Minister is preventing the Riksdag from fulfilling its duty 6. S considers that the Minister for Justice is using power techniques 7 and that the action should have been registered according to the Freedom of the Press Act, the Act on Public Employment, and the Penal Code 7. S argues that the Minister for Justice's statements mean that M in KU bears responsibility for the cover-up 7.
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)
Madam Speaker! Laila Naraghi has asked a number of questions to the Prime Minister regarding a damage assessment that has been prepared within the Government Offices. It concerns what the damage assessment contained, why there was a one-week delay between the incident that the damage assessment concerns and the dating of when the assessment was established and when the damage assessment was registered.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
The current damage assessment concerns an incident that occurred when the former national security advisor visited the Gällöfsta conference facility. The damage assessment has been prepared within the Government Offices and contains an account of and an assessment of what occurred.
When the Government Offices became aware of the incident, several measures were taken to handle the situation. One of the measures was that a damage assessment was carried out. The damage assessment is in a document that has been dated March 21, 2023. The fact that the document has been dated that date is because that was when the document began to be retrieved.
When it came to the registration of the document, the initial assessment was made that the document was not public, and therefore it was not registered. When the document was requested, the assessment was made that it was to be considered completed and thus public. The document was registered on 20 January 2025.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker and Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer! This debate is about the Prime Minister's handling of the Landerholm scandal. The Prime Minister's best friend was appointed as a security advisor but was careless and behaved improperly. My interpellation is not about Landerholm's improper conduct in office, but about the Prime Minister's, that is, what we in the Riksdag are mandated to scrutinize according to the constitution. We have wanted to scrutinize the Prime Minister, but he refuses to answer questions. Instead, the Minister of Justice is sent.
Madam Speaker! The former security advisor mishandled his performance of duties, which posed a risk to Sweden. One of several issues that has thus been highlighted concerns the government's damage assessments.
Dagens Nyheter mentions a damage assessment from March 21, 2023. It was carried out by the Prime Minister's Office due to Landerholm's mishandling of classified information, but according to DN, the damage assessment was not established until a week after the incident.
I have asked the Prime Minister why it was delayed, and the justice minister's reading provides no answers. A serious security incident had occurred. Responsible was the Prime Minister's best friend, the Moderate Henrik Landerholm. Why did the Prime Minister's office delay in making a damage assessment?
Madam Speaker! Why was Landerholm not reported to the police? There is an obligation for an authority to report suspicions of certain crimes. According to the Act on Public Employment, a person who is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime in their employment shall be reported. The reporting obligation applies, among other things, to suspicions that someone through negligence disclosed a secret piece of information, Penal Code Chapter 20, Section 3, which is what it was about here.
It was the Prime Minister's security department that conducted the damage assessment and involved the Prime Minister's closest staff, and the Prime Minister has told the media that it was the security department's assessment not to report it to the police – a decision that he, as head, was informed of and did not change. The head is responsible!
Madam Speaker! Why was the damage assessment only registered in the public records after more than 600 days? According to the Minister for Justice's answer just now, it was because the document was requested and the assessment was then made that it was to be considered completed and thus public.
Here, the Prime Minister's and unfortunately also the Justice Minister's lack of respect for our constitutional laws is revealed. In Sweden, we do have such laws, and they also apply to Ulf Kristersson and Gunnar Strömmer. The damage assessment should arguably have formed the basis for the Prime Minister's and his colleague's decision not to report Landerholm to the police and was therefore to be regarded as a public document, according to the provisions in the Freedom of the Press Act Chapter 2, Section 10. The document should then have been registered on the same day the decision was made not to report Landerholm to the police. But no registration took place.
Or do the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice mean that the decision not to report the Prime Minister's best friend to the police was based on another ground, perhaps the close friendship or party ties? Here, the Minister for Justice is the one at fault. Has the Prime Minister ignored the Freedom of the Press Act, or has he protected his friend? Or both?
Madam Speaker! During the question period yesterday, I asked the Minister for Justice why the Minister for Justice is standing in the way of letting the Riksdag scrutinize Kristersson according to the constitution. I also noted that Strömmer himself is only being pulled deeper into the Landerholm disaster. Instead of an answer, I received a question. In what way then, wondered Gunnar Strömmer. As he knew, I did not have the right of reply then, but I will answer him now: in many ways. For example, he has entangled himself in the Prime Minister's lack of performance in the matter of compliance with the constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act. There are more examples in this disaster. I have checked, Gunnar Strömmer.
The Swedish Riksdag should be allowed to scrutinize the Prime Minister, but the Minister for Justice stands in the way and lends his good name. I regret that, because it does not benefit Swedish democracy.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Laila Naraghi, for the opportunity to once again discuss these important issues!
No one is standing in the way of the Riksdag's scrutiny of these issues. An expression of that is that Laila Naraghi asks questions in various contexts in both interpellations and written questions, and most recently yesterday during the question period, and she receives answers to those questions. It is possible that Laila Naraghi is not satisfied with the answers. But it is not the case that anyone is standing between the member's opportunities to ask questions and to receive answers.
The questions asked in the interpellation concern more specifically what the damage assessment contained, and I have accounted for that. A question was also asked as to why a week passed between the incident that the damage assessment concerns and when it was dated, and I have also accounted for that. It also concerns the reasons why it was registered at that time. The questions are asked, and I answer them.
Regarding the question about the KU, it is neither my matter nor the Prime Minister's. I think perhaps that as an outside observer, one can note that the KU has had a practice that has applied for a long time of not examining matters that are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.
It was also the reason why the Social Democrats, as I have understood it from the side, agreed with that assessment last spring when KU examined the question of whether KU should review it. Since then, the Social Democrats have obviously changed their minds on that point. That is completely okay. I have no comments on that.
It might perhaps sound a bit high-flown to speak of constitutional practice or the KU's practice when the Social Democrats themselves choose to view the issue in a different way in this situation. Oh well, it is the KU's handling, and not mine and not the Prime Minister's.
What we can contribute is that when members like Naraghi ask questions, we answer those questions to the best of our ability. That is why I am here. To the extent that it is the basis for the claim that I am being drawn into this, I have to live with it. I feel that I am living up to my democratic obligations to answer the questions that Laila Naraghi asks.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker! I note that I am not receiving answers to the questions. It is sufficient for those following the debate to read the minutes, read my question, and see what the Minister for Justice first answered.
Why did the Prime Minister's staff delay making a damage assessment? There is no answer to that from the Minister for Justice. Why was Landerholm not reported to the police? Why was the damage assessment only registered after more than 600 days? There is also no answer to that.
Madam Speaker! I note that the Minister for Justice's answer as to why it was registered so late, while the Prime Minister's decision not to report Landerholm to the police according to Kristersson was based on the Security Department's damage assessment, is indeed subject to a KU report.
It is remarkable that from the side of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice, in the exercise of their duties, they ignore the Freedom of the Press Act, the Act on Public Employment, and the Penal Code.
My view of the Minister of Justice is otherwise that he is meticulous, but here something has gone wrong. The Minister of Justice should surely consider that the Freedom of the Press Act should also be followed by the Prime Minister, shouldn't he?
We simply have to return to the review of the answer that the Minister for Justice gave here today. I will also study the protocol of what is actually being said here today from the Minister for Justice's side.
Madam Speaker! In the Riksdag, we want to follow the constitution and be able to scrutinize the Prime Minister. That is our task. The crux is simply that the Prime Minister is now preventing the Riksdag from fulfilling its task. It gives vibes of other powerful men in the world who protect their friends and block scrutiny.
The Committee on the Constitution is, in fact, blocking Kristersson's opportunity to look at this. The Moderates are blocking the opposition's opportunity for transparency and scrutiny. It is unworthy. The argument put forward is that Landerholm is facing a fair trial. That is an argument that does not hold, because we do not want to scrutinize Landerholm. We want to scrutinize Kristersson.
Madam Speaker! The fact that the Minister for Justice is standing here today and speaking about the questions I have asked shows that it is possible to scrutinize according to current practice. If this were the subject of a legal process, the Minister for Justice would not be standing here today and speaking in substance about this.
The same applies to other parts of this matter which the Minister for Justice has also commented on and where it has been agreed and acknowledged that the Prime Minister has made a mistake. Why should the KU not be allowed to investigate the Prime Minister? The answer is quite obvious.
Kristersson and Strömmer hold the Moderates in a tight grip in the Committee on the Constitution. It is troubling that the Prime Minister, through his party, prevents the constitutionally protected scrutiny of the government.
Madam Speaker! I sat for six years in the Committee on the Constitution during the governments of Löfven and Andersson. Never did either of them prevent the KU from scrutinizing them. Never would we S-members stop the bourgeois opposition from access and scrutiny.
I was involved in the review of the Transport Agency. We scrutinized the government thoroughly. We put the constitution ahead of party loyalty. Our Prime Ministers and other ministers thought this was a matter of course, because the Social Democrats respect the constitution. It is embarrassing that Kristersson is unable to do the same, and it harms Sweden.
Madam Speaker! What we see today is instead a Prime Minister who is obscuring the truth. What is it that Kristersson does not want to be seen? It is sad to see the Minister for Justice trying to cover up for this Prime Minister's failure.
I have myself experience of good cooperation with Gunnar Strömmer, and I appreciate the Minister of Justice. I had high expectations of his integrity. If he is serious about the Riksdag and the KU being allowed to investigate this, then make sure to let go of the grip on the Moderates in the KU!
It is not worthy of the Moderaterna to stop the opposition from scrutinizing the government. One day the smoke will clear regarding what Kristersson is doing at the Statsrådsberedningen. It will not be pretty.
I do not demand that the Minister of Justice agree with me. But I ask why he does not take the side of the constitution. The Riksdag has the right to scrutinize the Prime Minister. Can Gunnar Strömmer and Ulf Kristersson let go of the KU-moderates so that an investigation can begin?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! One can certainly discuss how tight a grip the Prime Minister and the Minister for Justice have on the members of the Committee on the Constitution. But we can be sure that they had no grip on the members of the Social Democrats.
The Social Democratic members felt in the spring of 2025 that the Committee on the Constitution should follow the practice that has prevailed for a very long time, also in relation to Social Democratic ministers, regarding the issue of ongoing legal proceedings.
I do not judge that question. It is the KU that decides that. But since Laila Naraghi has a rather high tone, we can in any case agree that I did not direct any Social Democratic members in the KU when they stood up for the assessment that Laila Naraghi now dismisses as unworthy. Perhaps that was the least extreme expression used.
Under all circumstances, it is not something that the Minister for Justice handles. It is something that the Riksdag and the Committee on the Constitution handle, and obviously have handled in exactly the same way for a very long time. I think that is something one should keep in mind. I have no problem with people changing their minds, but then one must stand by the fact that one is making a different assessment.
The practice that has prevailed for ten years is something we do not want to continue, because now we believe there are other circumstances that argue for something else. It is perfectly okay to say so. But I think, perhaps, that it affects the weight of the rather highly-toned and rhetorically quite forcefully driven indictment.
Regarding the questions that Laila Naraghi says she has not received answers to, that is not correct. Laila Naraghi asks, for example, why the damage assessment is registered at a certain point in time. I have stated when it occurred and what were the underlying reasons for it.
When it was requested, the assessment was made that the document was completed, and it was then registered and issued. It is possible that Laila Naraghi is not satisfied with the answer. But there is no doubt that I, on behalf of the Prime Minister, answered the questions that Naraghi asked.
No one is standing in the way of Laila Naraghi's and for that matter other members' opportunities to ask questions. Interpellations, written questions, and question periods such as the one yesterday are well part of the scrutiny that in such cases the Social Democrats and for that matter other parties can engage in regarding this issue. No one is standing in the way of that.
Let us gladly have a straightforward exchange about the content. Perhaps we could manage without the most far-reaching conspiracy theories. I do not believe that these important issues are served by them.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister of Justice is giving a false expression of what the Social Democrats have said in the Committee on the Constitution. It becomes quite strange.
I also want to say that the Minister for Justice really knows his power techniques. I do not intend to speak more about them now. We can take that in another context.
I am not getting straight answers. It is not a straightforward exchange. Should the Prime Minister and his chancellery not respect the Freedom of the Press Act? Should the document not have been registered and entered into the public record in connection with the decision to not report Landerholm to the police?
It must have been the damage assessment that was the basis for not filing a police report. In that case, it should have been registered according to the Freedom of the Press Act, the Act on Public Employment, and the Penal Code. No direct exchange has occurred here.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice has repeatedly said that the KU can investigate this, that nothing prevents the KU and that the Prime Minister and he are not standing in the way. In principle, the Minister for Justice is then saying that the KU and no one else owns this. Given that we Social Democrats want to investigate and the Moderates in the KU are stopping us, one can interpret the Minister for Justice as saying that it is the Moderates in the KU who themselves bear responsibility for the cover-up.
Does the Minister for Justice think it is reasonable that his party comrades are stopping us from scrutinizing the Prime Minister? How does he view this? If the Minister for Justice means what he says about respecting the constitution: Let the KU-moderates go free!
In conclusion, Madam Speaker! I have myself worked at the Government Offices, at the UD. I have myself been inside the RK-carousel and prepared and reviewed documentation. I understand that it is likely the Government Offices' Department for the Ministry of Justice that prepared the documentation in the Minister of Justice's hands. He has come here to the Riksdag with answers that put him himself in a very difficult position regarding Swedish constitutional law, in this case the Freedom of the Press Act.
I regret this. I say it because I truly respect Gunnar Strömmer.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I think perhaps one must distinguish between substance and process. I find it difficult to see that I am in conflict with justice by coming here and answering the questions that Laila Naraghi has asked. I answer them on behalf of the Prime Minister, so to speak. This is, I would say, to the highest degree not only compatible with but also a prerequisite for the democratic rule of law.
I actually do not know what Laila Naraghi means when she speaks of power techniques. I very rarely engage in such things.
Questions are being asked; I answer them. I may note that I think some of the rhetoric is quite charged. I may also think that some things are being overstated, especially regarding KU's handling, because it was the Social Democrats' line as recently as this spring that it should be handled in exactly this way. If one has changed one's mind, that is perfectly okay. But perhaps it should affect the tone – that was my simple point – when one now directs or hurls accusations at the parties in the Committee on the Constitution that think in the same way as the Social Democrats did this spring regarding the manner in which these issues have been handled over a decade.
Under all circumstances, it is not my place to evaluate KU's handling of these issues. Of course, the Riksdag shall independently audit the government and the Prime Minister. That is also happening. An important expression of that is the exchange we have here today. It also applies to other answers provided on other interpellations, written questions and, for that part, questions asked here in the chamber during question periods. There was a question period just yesterday.
This exchange must continue. We will continue to answer questions. I assume that more will be asked. And there is a general interest in the discussion continuing.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.