Response to interpellations 2025/26:212 and 217 regarding the Prime Minister's responsibility for the disclosure of documents
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the Government Offices have taken measures and implemented educational initiatives to create better resilience and facilitate the handling of the disclosure of public documents 1. M considers that there are no grounds for further measures 1 and that employees have the same obligation to provide information to the judicial system as all citizens 1 2. M repeats that the message that correct information must be provided to the judicial investigation is unambiguous 3. M argues that it is not appropriate to comment on ongoing legal processes 1. M argues that the handling of public documents should have occurred more promptly and that conclusions have been drawn from this 4.
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, partly regarding whether the Prime Minister intends to take any measures to change his conduct of office when it comes to the disclosure of public documents, and partly why the Prime Minister has not appointed an inquiry regarding the Government Offices' submission of information to the Security Service or taken any measures to prevent the Government Offices from withholding evidence from law enforcement authorities.
The interpellations have been handed over to me.
We have had exchanges regarding these issues here in the chamber earlier, and at that time I have stated that the Government Offices have taken measures aimed at specifically creating better robustness in the handling of matters concerning the release of public documents.
The Government Offices also carry out educational initiatives and produce or review support materials to facilitate the handling. Regarding these initiatives, it is naturally so general that they apply to the processing of surrender cases. At the current time, there is therefore no reason to take any further measures.
When it comes to providing information to the judicial system, I can state that there is no difference between the obligations that the Government Offices' employees have and the obligations that all citizens have to provide information within the framework of a criminal investigation.
As I have previously pointed out, I have full confidence that the Government Offices and its employees act in accordance with these obligations. Another thing is, as I have also pointed out previously, that during a preliminary investigation, it is not uncommon for the status of the investigation to change as new information emerges.
I have previously emphasized the independence of the Swedish judiciary from the Riksdag and the government. It is therefore not appropriate for me, in my role, to comment further on the content of an ongoing legal process. In that regard, I have not changed my position.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker! The Security Services Unit and Chief Prosecutor Per Lindqvist have investigated the suspicions of crime against a former security advisor at the Government Offices' Cabinet Office. It concerns Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson's best friend Henrik Landerholm.
Säpo establishes in its preliminary investigation that the Government Offices have provided an incorrect account of the sequence of events. One of the errors concerned the timeline and the handling of information sent to the Government Offices. When the Government Offices were to hand over emails to Säpo regarding this, as Säpo was to collect evidence, this evidence was excluded. The Government Offices thus refrained from handing over evidence to the law enforcement authority.
Regarding the question of whether the Government Offices have withheld evidence from Säpo, the chief prosecutor has said: It lies outside the scope of the criminal investigation we are conducting, and we therefore have no comments on this.
Madam Speaker! It is not the responsibility of the Security Services to bring charges against or exercise supervision over the government and individual ministers. That responsibility lies with the Riksdag in accordance with the Instrument of Government. It is called scrutiny and is constitutionally protected.
I have received an answer from the Minister for Justice that no measures have been taken by the Prime Minister to ensure that he himself or his office does not withhold evidence from Säpo in the future. It is peculiar.
Madam Speaker! In another but closely related issue concerning the fact that the Prime Minister and his office have failed in their handling of the principle of public access in the Landerholm affair, the government has conducted at least a partial investigation into what occurred and taken certain measures such as educational initiatives and support materials.
The Minister for Justice has conceded to the Riksdag that the Prime Minister and his staff should have handled it differently, but why is the same not done when it comes to not withholding evidence from a law enforcement agency? According to Säpo, the Prime Minister's office has fallen short here, and it is therefore reasonable to, as in the other case where the Minister for Justice conceded that the Prime Minister fell short, both investigate the matter and initiate educational measures and produce support material so that it is not repeated. Why has this not been done by the Prime Minister?
It is, Madam Speaker, very serious that we have a Prime Minister's Office that provides incorrect accounts to the judiciary. To use Säpo's own words: The Prime Minister is the head and bears responsibility.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice says that he cannot comment on an ongoing legal process. That is not what I have requested. The question of why the Prime Minister's Chancellery has provided an incorrect account to Säpo is not the subject of any legal process. Nor is it something that, as I understand it, is being examined in an ongoing legal process, just as the disclosure of documents regarding the Landerholm case is not the subject of a legal process. In that instance, the Minister for Justice has conceded that the Prime Minister has failed in his handling. The Minister for Justice has there stated that an investigation and measures have been taken.
Madam Speaker! How is it that it has been possible to do this during the time that Landerholm is on trial but not the other? None of this is being tested by the judiciary.
I repeat what the chief prosecutor has said regarding the Prime Minister's staff member having provided an incorrect account to Säpo: It falls outside the scope of the criminal investigation we are conducting, and we therefore have no comments on this.
Or does the Minister for Justice have other duties? In that case, the Minister for Justice has de facto commented on the matter, albeit indirectly, which would be problematic.
Here I must ask the Minister for Justice for a clarification in this already messy Landerholm soup. Is the Prime Minister's Office withholding evidence for review in the legal process, despite the chief prosecutor having said that it is not? If so, it is a major news item. But if it is not subject to this, Madam Speaker, the Minister for Justice should stop hiding behind empty words so that the Riksdag's scrutiny can continue in accordance with the Instrument of Government – our constitution.
We must have this reviewed. One cannot hide behind the fact that this is a legal process, because it is not contained within the ongoing legal process.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I am not sure if the circumstances in this case became so much clearer from Laila Naraghi's contribution, but I can still make an attempt to respond.
Regarding information in an ongoing criminal investigation, I have conceded that the status of the investigation can, of course, change over time. That is, so to speak, nothing strange in itself. I have naturally not claimed that the question Laila Naraghi poses would be the subject of the ongoing legal process. On the other hand, the circumstances we are talking about are, of course, the subject of the ongoing legal process, because the legal process is about those circumstances. But that does not mean that the angle of which pieces of information have been submitted in a criminal investigation, and at what point in time, is the subject of the legal process.
Regarding measures, there is still a slight difference between the two situations. When it comes to the handling of requests for public documents, it is highly a routine matter: How should requests that come in be handled? How should it be done expeditiously? How should one ensure that there are no unnecessary delays? How should one ensure that different parts of the system work together to achieve this?
When we last met and spoke about this, I pointed out what has been done within the framework of the Government Offices' administration department. I also said that even the public records concerning the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's State Secretary could have been released more promptly. This means that the discussion on how to improve those routines naturally affects both parts of the system.
When it comes to providing information to a preliminary investigation, it is, so to speak, not a routine matter but a legal obligation that applies equally to everyone. If a discussion arises about which pieces of information have been provided and at what point in time, and if reference is made to what the prosecutor has said in the case, it is clear that it is acknowledged that correct information must, of course, be provided to the judicial investigation. That message is, of course, unambiguous from the government. What I am saying, however, is that that insight and that message have not been followed by any specific measures.
I say neither more nor less than that, but repeat what is obvious, which is that the obligation applies to each of us regardless of whether we receive questions in our capacity as citizens or whether we receive questions in our capacity as officials in the Government Offices.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the reasoning, if I may say so.
I note that the Minister for Justice is making some kind of distinction here, but I would have liked the Government Offices to also see it as a routine not to provide incorrect accounts to a law enforcement authority and to see that it is a legal issue concerning the principle of public access.
I choose, however, to trust the chief prosecutor, Madam Speaker, that what we are discussing here today is not the subject of the criminal investigation and therefore not for the legal process. Therefore, it is obvious that we here in the Riksdag must take our responsibility and scrutinize the Prime Minister's performance of duties.
I will study the minutes and see what exactly the Minister for Justice said in the introduction of his contribution. It cannot be that, from the government's side, one is trying to undermine the Riksdag's oversight power in this matter by pointing to a legal process that is not about what I am asking questions about. That would be troublesome in that case. But let us look at the minutes, or alternatively, the Minister for Justice can gladly clarify this.
(Minister of Justice GUNNAR STRÖMMER (M): I am standing here, so I can answer then.)
One thing is certain, however: Kristersson's handling is troublesome. It is sad to see a government and a Minister for Justice trying to cover up for this administrative failure. Here, the country's Minister for Justice needs to stand firm. It should have been the Prime Minister who stood here and answered the Riksdag's questions.
Säpo has established that the Government Offices have withheld evidence, and we cannot have it this way. The Prime Minister's Office must be compelled to provide correct information to law enforcement authorities, and here the Minister for Justice has a responsibility to shoulder. Säpo falls under the Ministry of Justice, which the Minister for Justice is the head of. I assume that the Minister for Justice stands up for his own agency.
Madam Speaker! I have myself experience of good cooperation with Gunnar Strömmer, and I appreciate the Minister of Justice. I have high expectations of his integrity. At home in Oskarshamn, where I come from, Social Democrats and Moderates also rule together – just as we do in many places around the country – and I have good experience of this.
Over the years, I have also here in the Riksdag had a very good cooperation with the Moderaterna, previously in the Committee on the Constitution and now in the Committee on Civil Affairs. I appreciate the cooperation. We all put in our best effort to make it work, to do what is best for Sweden and for our constitutional laws to have full impact here in the country.
Madam Speaker! I say this to clarify that for me, it is not about whether Ulf Kristersson or Gunnar Strömmer is moderate. I stand here today because Sweden has a Prime Minister who is failing in his performance of his duties; the entire Landerholm affair demonstrates this with clarity.
It shows in the Prime Minister's handling of the principle of public access, where the Minister for Justice himself has conceded – that is, admitted – that the Prime Minister has made a mistake. It shows in the fact that the Prime Minister and his chancellery are providing false information to a judicial authority. It also shows in the fact that the Prime Minister sends the Minister for Justice here to answer questions about the Prime Minister's performance of duties, that is, something he himself should be held accountable for.
Madam Speaker! I have asked simple, concrete questions to the Prime Minister. It is petty of him not to bother to come here and answer them. This is not how one can behave towards the Swedish public or towards the Riksdag, Madam Speaker. We have a constitutionally protected task to scrutinize the government and raise the questions we deem necessary. As a member, I take that seriously.
I have also raised questions towards the ministers of the Sledda governments. It has not always been easy, but it has been done; one example is the final storage and another is Russian fuel in Vattenfall's reactors, among others. I say this only to preempt any potential mockery that this is party-tactical, because it is not. It concerns issues regarding Sweden's Prime Minister and his exercise of office – how he has used his power to help his friend. The Riksdag must be allowed to examine it without the Moderates and the government sabotaging or trying to hide behind things that are not relevant.
I know that many are following this with great interest. Many, also former Moderate voters, are concerned by how Kristersson has used public power to protect his friend Landerholm.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I would, of course, never imply that there was even a grain of party-political considerations behind the questions that Laila Naraghi poses here today.
I want to object that it becomes a bit of a battle over the Pope's beard to discuss what is included in the preliminary investigation and what is not. What the prosecutor says is that the alleged withholding of evidence is naturally not part of the preliminary investigation because it concerns alleged crimes in other respects. Then I have only said that those pieces of evidence that are said not to have been submitted in a correct manner are naturally part of the preliminary investigation, but that is because they are evidence regarding the crime that it concerns.
This will be a reasoning about an issue that actually does not play any role because I have never claimed that anything of what we say there would prevent the Riksdag from performing its mission. If it is the case that the Riksdag wants to ask questions about what the prosecutor says, it is of course nothing that is prevented by the fact that a preliminary investigation is ongoing; I have only tried to answer questions about what is included and what is not, and I believe that is quite clear both when I say it and, for all intents and purposes, for the one who wants to read the minutes afterwards.
I merely note once again that measures have been taken regarding the routines for the release of public documents, as there is, of course, a strong public interest that this occurs in a correct and prompt manner.
The obligation to provide information to ongoing judicial investigations naturally applies equally to everyone. I have expressed a great confidence in the Government Offices in that regard. In the event that something has not gone the right way in that regard, I repeat, just as I have done previously, that this is an obligation that applies to each and every one – of course also for employees in the Government Offices. I think that is a very clear and distinct message.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Madam Speaker! These interpellations were submitted to the Prime Minister two weeks ago. They are concrete, simple questions to answer. The Minister for Justice says here that there is nothing preventing us from asking them. Since there is nothing preventing us from asking them, one would have hoped that the Prime Minister himself would come here and answer them. Nevertheless, Kristersson sends the Minister for Justice instead.
It honors Gunnar Strömmer that he has conceded that the Prime Minister has made a mistake and failed in his handling when it comes to the principle of public access.
I know that many are listening today. For those who may not be entirely familiar with parliamentary jargon, I can state that "vidgå" according to the Swedish Academy's dictionary means "admit". The Minister for Justice has therefore admitted that the Prime Minister made a mistake.
But, Madam Speaker, it would have been appropriate for the Minister for Justice to also stand up for the importance of the Prime Minister and his associates not withholding evidence from the judicial authorities. That is what has happened. The Prime Minister should come here to the Riksdag and answer questions on this.
We simply have to return to the Prime Minister and keep our fingers crossed that Gunnar Strömmer does not once again lend himself to this type of event. Sweden's Riksdag and the Swedish public have the right to expect that the Prime Minister performs his duties. That includes respecting Swedish law and handing over information to the judicial authorities. What should children and young people think when they see the country's Prime Minister and his associates behaving this way?
Madam Speaker! Since this is the last time I will take the floor in this chamber before Christmas, I would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to the Speaker, all our colleagues, all employees in the Riksdag Administration and, of course, also the Minister for Justice.
I also want to ask the Minister for Justice to convey a Christmas greeting to the Prime Minister. I hope that the Prime Minister takes off the bandage and dares to come here to the chamber during the new year. New year, new chance! I want to give him a new opportunity to respect the Instrument of Government. It is not worthy to continue as he does now when he tries to contort himself away from the Riksdag's scrutiny. It is disrespectful towards the Swedish constitution.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Laila Naraghi naturally asks legitimate questions and also receives straightforward answers to those questions.
Of course, the Riksdag has the role of scrutinizing the Prime Minister; this exchange of views is an expression of that. I know that matters are being handled in the Committee on the Constitution that have connections to these issues, and it is of course entirely justified that this occurs.
On these straightforward questions, I believe I have conveyed quite clear answers. The first concerned the handling of the public documents, which was not the main item today. This should have happened more promptly. In retrospect, it has been reviewed, checked how it could have been done in a better way, and then conclusions and lessons have been drawn from it.
Regarding the question of providing information to an ongoing preliminary investigation, I have said the only reasonable and straightforward thing, namely that this is a legal obligation that applies to all of us. It also applies, of course, to employees in the Government Offices. I have very great confidence in the employees in the Government Offices, both in that respect and in all other respects.
Laila Naraghi is fully within her rights to ask questions. I have, in all respects, provided nuanced answers. Whether there will be a continuation in the new year remains to be seen. In any case, I agree with the greeting of a Merry Christmas and, eventually, a Happy New Year.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.