Response to interpellation 2025/26:408 on the aid support to Hepatica and the Olof Palme International Centre

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Büser has asked me if I intend to change the conditions for aid so that it will not be possible to allocate aid funds to organizations despite information regarding extreme risk levels and lack of reporting. Johan Büser has further asked how I view the fact that Swedish aid funds, according to reports in the media, go to actors in Brazil who oppose abortion and sexual and reproductive health and rights, and if I intend to take any actions based on this. Johan Büser has also asked how I ensure that cases are handled based on the same principles of quality, risk assessment, and equal treatment. Finally, Johan Büser has asked if I intend to take the initiative for an external review of how the decisions regarding aid to Hepatica and Olof Palmes Internationella Center were made and whether political influence has occurred.

Initially, it can be stated that the interpellator's questions concern two different aid strategies: the strategy for specific democracy support through Swedish party-affiliated organizations 2024–2027, the so-called PAO strategy, and the strategy for Sweden's development cooperation with civil society 2025–2029, the so-called CSO strategy.

The PAO strategy supports the parliamentary parties' affiliated organizations in their democracy-promoting work, and its funds are distributed largely in accordance with the distribution of mandates here in the Riksdag. The CSO strategy, in turn, aims to strengthen a pluralistic and vibrant civil society in developing countries and is based on open, competitive tenders.

Regarding the CSO strategy, Sida decided in 2025 that party-affiliated organizations would no longer be able to apply for funds within the strategy. This concerned, among others, Olof Palmes Internationella Center, Opic, and Swedish International Liberal Centre, Silc. All party-affiliated organizations, including OPC and Silc, receive support under the PAO strategy.

The government has carried out the largest reform of Swedish aid in decades. We set high requirements that Sida shall increase efficiency, strengthen its internal control, and work from transparency and evidence-based governance. Sida's instruction is clear: Aid may not be given to actors who conduct or support anti-democratic activities, violent extremism, Islamism, antisemitism, terrorism, hate propaganda, or activities that undermine the rights of women and girls.

If uncertainty arises in the assessment of an actor, the authority shall apply a precautionary principle to ensure that aid funds do not risk reaching unsuitable recipients. This is a central part of the government's tightened governance. I have been clear about the government's position: Not a single Swedish tax krona shall go to actors who undermine the rights of women and girls. If an actor does not meet these requirements, the authority has several tools to use, including the possibility of demanding the return of tax funds. These principles apply regardless of which organization has channeled the funds.

The Government, as is known, governs Sida through decisions on the agency's instructions and by deciding on assignments in regulatory letters or in specific decisions. It is, however, up to Sida to independently apply the rules and make decisions in individual cases. Furthermore, in its activities, Sida shall take into account everyone's equality before the law as well as observe objectivity and impartiality.

Against this background, I do not intend to appoint any such review of the matters to which the interpellor refers.

Since the interpellor reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the first deputy speaker granted that Morgan Johansson (S) instead was allowed to participate in the interpellation debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall first say that the reason I am taking this debate instead of my party colleague Johan Büser, who submitted the interpellation, is that Johan has not had time to return from Hungary, where he has been monitoring the election for the Riksdag's account.

As everyone knows, the election result in Hungary meant that one could finally vote out a corrupt and authoritarian right-wing government. For 16 years, Viktor Orbán has done everything to dismantle democracy, undermine the rule of law, control the media, and sideline the opposition. In the end, he received help from both Putin and Trump, but it did not help. The Hungarian people said no to Orbán, and they said it clearly.

This actually relates to the theme of the interpellation, which concerns how an authoritarian right-wing party – Sverigedemokraterna – is allowed to corrupt the Swedish public administration in a way we have never seen before, and with the government's full knowledge. Sverigedemokraterna have had good contacts with Orbán's party. Ironically, the head of the delegation for the election observation in Hungary was none other than Björn Söder. Björn Söder is also the chairman of Sverigedemokraterna's aid organization Hepatica, which this debate is about.

It is the same Björn Söder who has made himself known for his antisemitic and homophobic statements. Recently, he said that Jews cannot be real Swedes. Then he said that the Prime Minister, the Speaker, and the Foreign Minister promoted pedophilia when they walked in the Pride Parade. The Foreign Minister became very upset and demanded an apology for it. Do we think he has received any apology? Of course not. Björn Söder never faces any consequences for his actions. He knows, in fact, that he can do exactly what he wants because the government protects him.

It becomes glaringly obvious in this matter. Björn Söder is, as stated, the chairman of the Sweden Democrats' aid organization Hepatica, which has not received support from Sida previously because their applications simply have not met the standard. Sida's officials have warned of extreme risks of corruption with the projects that the Sweden Democrats have proposed – until last year. Then the Government Offices suddenly intervened and ordered that Sida should pay out money to Hepatica. Hepatica received 14 million kronor. 14 million kronor to Björn Söder – what can go wrong? Everything, of course.

It now turns out that Hepatica cannot show where the money has gone. One cannot provide receipts. They claim to have given money to organizations in Ukraine – which have never heard of Hepatica and have not seen a trace of any money. Most striking, however, is that it has now been revealed that the Sverigedemokraterna have funneled aid money to an anti-abortion organization in Brazil controlled by the Bolsonaro family. Former President Jair Bolsonaro did not accept that he lost the election in 2022 but instead attempted to carry out a coup d'état in the country by storming parliament. He is now under house arrest and has been sentenced to 27 years in prison. It is therefore his organization that is now distributing Swedish aid money, which in my opinion is completely insane.

In his answer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs tries to refer to Sida. We know that is false. It was the Sweden Democrats and the government that from the beginning forced Sida to pay out the money despite all the alarm bells ringing regarding extreme risk of corruption. When Sida's appointed Director-General Hanna Hellquist is asked about this in DN, she washes her hands of it. It is the government's direction that Hepatica should have money, she says. And now Hepatica is to receive an additional 23 million kronor – all of this, as stated, with the government's good pleasure, yes, even at the government's initiative.

My question therefore remains: Why does the government not intervene when you see how Swedish tax money is being misused in this obviously corrupt way? Are you so afraid of the Sweden Democrats and Björn Söder?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I stand here partly as a Member of Parliament, partly as a proud representative of Hepatica – I am, in fact, the vice-chairman of the aid foundation Hepatica.

This is, therefore, the only Swedish party-affiliated aid organization that has a presence in Ukraine. It is also the only Swedish party-affiliated aid organization that has received an award from Zelenskyy's office thanks to our aid work in Ukraine.

It becomes almost a bit parodic when Morgan Johansson, Johan Büser and other Social Democrats are to speak about legal certainty and equal treatment. The fact is that if we look back to the year 2024, Olof Palmes Internationella Center, that is, the Social Democrats' counterpart, received a total of 180 million kronor from the Swedish state while Hepatica received 5.8 million kronor. The year before that, Hepatica did not receive a single krona. Other parties' aid policy organizations received a total of 97.3 million during 2024, which is approximately half of what the Social Democrats received as a single party.

That is why it is pathetic when a Social Democrat is supposed to stand here and speak about corruption. It is the Social Democrats who have most closely rigged this system and ensured that their aid foundation shall receive so much more money than all other party-political organizations combined. In total between the years 2000 and 2024, the foundation Olof Palme Internationella Center has received over 3 billion Swedish tax kronor while Hepatica before 2024 did not receive a single krona. How can this be reasonable? One must undeniably be a Social Democrat to make that equation add up.

I also hear the Social Democrats talking about how Hepatica has indeed funneled money to anti-abortion activists in South America. I don't know where to begin when it comes to all the lies that Morgan Johansson and the Social Democrats are coming up with.

I can assure Mr. Johansson that not a single Swedish tax krona has gone through Hepatica to any anti-abortion activity – not even in Brazil, as was spoken about in DN. It is a youth conference that has received funds in Brazil, and there was nothing in that conference that dealt with anti-abortion. Morgan Johansson and his party colleagues would of course have known if they had now been interested in checking up on the matter, but they have not been.

Then I wonder if the Social Democrats mean that one should not conduct activities where there is a certain view on individual issues that have nothing to do with that activity. Given that South America is an almost entirely Catholic region, one could then not conduct any activity at all there, because of the view on abortion.

Then I think it can be a bit interesting to look at the Social Democrats themselves in this case. We can look at Olof Palmes Internationella Center, which gladly supports its dear sister party Fatah in Palestine. Where Fatah rules, abortion is illegal. It is only permitted in cases where the woman's life is in danger. So, it must be the end of stones in glass houses now. Sweep clean in front of your own door – please!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government is currently carrying out the largest reorganization of Swedish aid policy since the 1970s. Aid has long been too fragmented and inefficient and not sufficiently transparent.

I also understand that the Social Democrats are very upset. Step by step, we are dismantling the aid complex that the Social Democrats have exploited to benefit themselves. The Social Democrats think it is more important to benefit their own aid organization than to reach and help people in need. They have rigged the system to their own advantage.

When Member of Parliament Morgan Johansson himself sat in the government, almost 70 percent of all aid money went to party-affiliated organizations, which by chance included Olof Palmes Internationella Center, that is, the Social Democrats' own aid organization. So it was year after year, with hundreds of millions after hundreds of millions – billions after billions. The system had been rigged in favor of the Social Democrats.

During 2024 and 2025, the Government gave Sida several assignments to strengthen anti-corruption, counter conflicts of interest, improve risk management, and develop the information platform Openaid to provide the public with greater insight into aid. These are not cosmetic measures but a fundamental change of the Swedish aid system. Swedish aid funds are now covered by a robust control framework. Sida has powerful tools and a clear mandate to follow up and act when risks arise, whether it concerns reporting, capacity, or activities that conflict with the purpose of the aid.

Through the current CSO strategy, the government has made it possible for Sida to more than quintuple the number of partners during the strategy. Now it is not just Olof Palmes Internationella Center and 16 others that it is about, but many more who get to compete with each other with the best interventions. The strategy has also opened up for new organizations both in Sweden and in partner countries to enter into direct partnerships with Sida. Socialdemokraterna have been against all of this and have done nothing about it. This strengthens civil society's role in aid and also broadens the democratic anchoring in development cooperation.

We have also changed the system for how party-affiliated aid organizations shall receive funding so that it is based more on the parliamentary parties' mandates. It is correct and fair. The background to this is, of course, that the Social Democrats have over the decades rigged the system to Opics' advantage. Now it is equal for everyone. The taxpayers' money is not the Social Democrats' own money.

Clear requirements for quality and results apply to everyone, of course, and it is absolutely central that Sida follows up on risks in dialogue with the respective organization. Sida has many tools in the toolbox to be able to act. Sida also has the possibility to offer capacity support to partner organizations that need to develop their structures for follow-up and control. It is this combination – sharper control and that it is equal for everyone – that lays the foundation for aid that is more open, secure, and effective.

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say to Markus Wiechel that Palmecentret has been active in Ukraine for a long time – a very long time. But unlike Hepatica, Palmecentret can account for where the money goes. That was what DN's revelation was about, that is to say that Hepatica could not account for receipts and expenses. There were organizations in Ukraine that did not even know what Hepatica was, and yet it stated on Hepatica's website that money was being given to those organizations. It is obvious cheating and trickery.

Then I listened to Benjamin Dousa, and he mentioned Palmecentret at least 15 times. How many times did he mention Hepatica? I believe it was zero – not even once. Why? Well, Benjamin Dousa is terrified – terrified – of criticizing the Sverigedemokraternas aid organization. Not even when the fact that one funnels money from the aid organization to an anti-abortion organization in Brazil controlled by Bolsonaro – who is, in fact, sentenced to 27 years in prison for an attempted coup – stares Benjamin Dousa right in the face, can he go as far as to voice criticism of the organization.

Benjamin Dousa is the responsible minister for these appropriations. He is responsible for whether money ends up in the wrong pockets. Therefore, in my opinion, he must comment on Hepatica in the next entry. Now be clear that you cannot accept that money is funneled to such types of organizations, Benjamin Dousa!

The Minister should also not try to hide behind Sida, because we all know that Sida is now micro-managed by the Government Offices. Last year, the Sweden Democrats, led by Björn Söder, extorted money. There is evidence in the form of text messages from the responsible State Secretary to Sida's gd. Money was coerced. There have also been several other such revelations.

We know, then, that this is directly controlled from the Government Offices. Therefore, I hope that Benjamin Dousa in the next contribution can take the time to talk a bit about Hepatica and explain what the government's position is. Should Swedish aid funds really be used in this way? Where is the limit for Benjamin Dousa? 14 million kronor have been paid out, and now 23 million kronor are to be paid out. Now it was this Bolsonaro organization, but which is the next organization that will receive Swedish aid money – Ku Klux Klan? Proud Boys? Some white power organization in South Africa?

Benjamin Dousa speaks about transparency, but that is precisely what we do not have here. Every time Sida's employees try to check where the money has gone in Markus Wiechel's organization, that is, the one he is vice chairman of, they are met with a cold shoulder. They do not want to account for where the money has gone anywhere, but instead, Björn Söder sends a nightly email to someone employed there where he threatens with consequences if Sida's employees do not immediately fall in line and do exactly as he says.

This is what I spoke about in the introduction, namely how one successively corrupts the Swedish public administration. One also takes the opportunity to tear down Palmecentrets activities, which have functioned without any remarks for decades. Palmecentret has competed on exactly the same terms as all other party-affiliated organizations. It is not rigged anywhere, but it is exactly the same means.

All party-affiliated organizations have also been able to apply for funds from the CSO strategy. The State Council just mentioned that the liberal organization has done so and received a share of funds from that strategy – on exactly the same terms as everyone else. The difference is that we have simply had much better projects and much more international contacts and have therefore been able to deliver better applications.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can once again assure Morgan Johansson that we have full control over where the money goes. Not a single krona has been misappropriated in any way. On the contrary, we have been extremely careful that the money goes where it is intended, precisely given that we know we are scrutinized significantly harder than other parties.

Furthermore, we have a completely different view on aid. We actually want the money to be useful. It often does not seem to be quite the case when it comes to Social Democratic projects.

Morgan Johansson was once again up and speaking about the Brazil project. We evaluated it after DN's review – if one is to call it a review, but I do so for the sake of simplicity. Not a single krona has gone to any anti-abortion activity. There are no ambiguities there. The only connection to Bolsonaro is a kinship. But sure, one can assume from blood ties, as if it had any significance.

We have evaluated the project. The support went to a youth conference to support the building of democracy among youth.

DN has had an agenda-setting journalism – it is quite obvious. There is a reason why no other media outlets have joined their alleged scrutiny. It is also obvious that Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokrater consistently use this and distort the truth in order to somehow win cheap political points. But it is a castle in the air – there is nothing to grasp.

The reason why we have not been able to start certain projects, for example in Ukraine, as Johansson spoke about, is that we have not had the money paid out, even though the projects have been approved. It is an activist at Sida who has deliberately sabotaged. We will tell more about this; I can promise that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has, in several instances, tightened the requirements for Sida, including regarding the choice of partners in both of the relevant strategies being discussed right now. In the PAO strategy, it clearly states that the partners that the party-affiliated organizations choose to cooperate with shall have activities aimed at democratic development and increased respect for human rights. They shall operate with democratic means and methods as well as non-violence.

Sida's instruction, which we have touched upon previously, is now crystal clear and applies to all current aid strategies. Aid may not go to actors who engage in anti-democratic activities, extremism, terrorism, or activities that undermine the rights of women and girls. At the slightest uncertainty, the precautionary principle shall be applied. This applies, of course, to the aid activities of the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals, the Sweden Democrats, and the Hepaticas. It is the same for everyone.

Equality for all is also what currently characterizes the new PAO strategy. The supports shall be based on the mandates in the Riksdag. The Social Democrats are, as far as I know, the Riksdag's largest party and therefore receive a larger share of the PAO supports.

It is an end to the successive corruption of aid that the Social Democrats have engaged in for decades and used to their own advantage. As was said: Almost 70 percent of everything that went to party-affiliated organizations went – by chance – to Olof Palmes Internationella Center. Now it is over. Now it is equal for everyone.

Furthermore, it is very interesting that we have put the activities in the CSO strategy out to tender and brought in many more new organizations that get to compete on equal terms, so that the best projects and initiatives get to receive Swedish tax money. Swedish tax money is therefore not the same thing as the Social Democrats' money; it is something else.

We have given Sida more tools than previous governments to act if errors and deficiencies are discovered at Hepatica, Olof Palmes Internationella Center, or the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation. There are plenty of tools that Sida can use if it were to be shown that support has gone to, for example, anti-democratic activities or activities that undermine the rights of women and girls.

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Markus Wiechel said that there is a certain kinship. Bolsonaro's daughter-in-law is the chair of the organization that the Sverigedemokraterna have sent money to. It is directly controlled by the Bolsonaro family, whose head sits in prison for attempted coup d'état. Swedish tax money and aid funds have gone there. They have been funneled there by Sverigedemokraterna.

Markus Wiechel also said that the reason why one cannot really account for this is that the money has not been received. On the Sweden Democrats' website, it stated information about organizations for support to Ukraine that they claimed had received money from Hepatica. The person who called and asked these organizations was told that they had never heard of Hepatica. Markus Wiechel says that this is due to the fact that the money has not been paid out, and that this in turn is due to an activist at Sida.

Then we are there again. That is how an authoritarian party behaves. One goes straight against the state administration and civil servants in order to frighten them into silence.

What have these so-called activists at Sida done then? Well, they have pointed out extreme risks of corruption in connection with the project proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna have submitted. This Björn Söder has not been able to accept. Instead, he has devoted himself to trying to hunt down officials at Sida and the Government Offices and – as we know – has forced himself into using these means.

It is Benjamin Dousa who is the responsible minister for this. I listened to his contribution, which was 75 percent about the Palmecentret. Which activities are it that are now losing their support? It concerns, for example, support for legal aid for women in Turkey who have been subjected to sexual abuse, support for women and children exposed to violence in southern Africa, support for democracy fighters in Georgia and Belarus, and support for trade unions in Zimbabwe. This support is now being withdrawn because the government wants to squeeze Olof Palmes Internationella Center at all costs and instead direct the money to Hepatica. This debate has shown what kind of organization Hepatica is.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is not about squeezing the Olof Palme International Center. I am completely convinced that Opic makes many important contributions all over the world. This is instead about changing the playing field so that it is equal for everyone. For example, one should not be able to systematically rig a development aid system so that it benefits one's own aid organization.

We have seen this from the Social Democrats in several areas. Among many other things, we have seen how they rigged the lottery legislation to their own advantage to favor their own lottery. Does this not bring to mind Orbán's Hungary? Through what we are doing now, it will, once again, be equal for everyone.

The government's governance is based on a very simple principle: Aid shall be effective and legally secure. It is therefore the government that sets the framework, while Sida, as an independent agency, makes decisions on which individual organizations to cooperate with and which interventions may receive Swedish support. According to its instructions, Sida shall observe objectivity, impartiality, and equal treatment in every case.

It is important that we have also strengthened how the aid is audited. This applies both to internal auditing within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and at Sida, as well as systematic auditing by, for example, the Swedish National Audit Office, the Swedish Agency for Public Management, and EBA. I welcome more auditing of the Swedish aid; it needs to be audited much more. I believe that one of the main reasons why such an inefficient apparatus as the one that existed before we took over and began our spring cleaning was built up over decades is that it was audited far too little. Things that would never have been accepted in virtually any other policy area were accepted decade after decade in the aid area.

We want robust systems for control, follow-up, and external auditing. The government will continue to push for this.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)