Now the “Gang of Three” Must Be Investigated

At the end of 2025, the Nansen programme had a total framework of 274.5 billion kroner up to 2030. At the same time, the Office of the Auditor General has documented weaknesses that should make every member of parliament sit up. Several agreements lacked concrete assessments of corruption risk. Norad’s control and documentation were inadequate in several of the cases examined. In half of the payments examined, Norad had not obtained a receipt. On the military side, the Auditor General has concluded that the Ministry of Defence has not had internal control that ensures satisfactory follow-up and control of grant funds.

These are not rumours from social media. This is not Russian propaganda. These are not conspiracy theories. This is criticism from Norway’s own supervisory body.

Yet the billions keep rolling.

And now Norway is also to set aside up to one billion kroner through the EU’s Ukraine Facility. Norway will be the first country outside the EU to contribute to this part of the scheme. The money is to fund, among other things, the Ukrainian state’s running costs and reforms. The government itself says many of the reforms are necessary for future Ukrainian EU membership.

So I must ask: has the Støre government completely lost its understanding of what Norwegian voters have actually decided?

Norway is not a member of the EU. We have said no twice. Yet the government increasingly behaves as if Norway were already sitting at the table in Brussels. We implement, pay, adapt – and now we are even to contribute financially to the reforms that are to bring Ukraine into a union we ourselves have chosen to stay out of.

Espen Barth Eide says openly that Norway supports Ukraine’s path to EU membership.

With what democratic mandate should Norway be a financial backer of the EU’s further enlargement?

This is where the role of the Storting becomes decisive. What has the Storting actually been told along the way? What risk assessments were on the table when the billions were approved? How clearly was the risk of corruption and misuse presented? Did the members of parliament know how weak parts of the control were? When did the government learn of the problems? And what did it do then?

I believe the Storting has been misled. That is precisely why the matter must be investigated. If essential information about risk, control problems or lack of traceability was not clearly presented to the Storting, we have a democratic problem of an entirely different dimension.

Nor is this only about whether anyone has put money in their own pocket. Political corruption is a serious term, takes many forms and requires documentation. Perhaps Støre, Barth Eide, Stoltenberg or President Zelensky have not personally received kickbacks from Norwegian Ukraine funds, but it should be checked for evidence.

Even in the current absence of such evidence, we should not switch off the torch.

On the contrary. When control has documented weaknesses, the entire money flow must be brought into the light. Who received the money? Which organisations got it? Which companies got contracts? How much went to administration, consultants and other intermediaries? How much can be documented all the way to the final recipient? How many warnings of possible misuse have been received, and how were they handled?

I want the cards on the table.

And this is where the “gang of three” comes in. Støre is prime minister. Barth Eide is foreign minister. Stoltenberg is finance minister. These are not three random men watching Norwegian politics from the sidelines. They are at the centre of the apparatus of power and must therefore also face the toughest questions.

The Auditor General must keep digging. The Storting’s Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs must examine what basis for decision-making the Storting actually received. If such an investigation reveals concrete indications of criminal financial dispositions, the relevant investigating authorities must of course be brought in.

No one should be prejudged. But no politician should be protected from scrutiny because the questions are uncomfortable.

The most provocative thing is the notion that criticism of this spending almost automatically means being against Ukraine. That is absurd. One can feel compassion for Ukraine’s population and at the same time demand rock-solid control of Norwegian billions. In fact, enormous war appropriations should require more control than ordinary appropriations, not less.

I am a veteran. I know what war does to people. That is why I want Norway to put far more political weight behind diplomacy, negotiations and peace work. But whatever policy one supports, one rule must be unshakeable: public money must be accountable.

The “gang of three” must therefore face a full review of the decisions, the money flows and the information given to the Storting.

No more political assurances. No more billions followed by being told we should simply trust the system.

Present the documentation.

Show us the money flows.

Show us the controls.

And if everything can bear the light of day, the government has nothing to fear.

But if the Storting has not been given the full picture, Norway has a democratic problem far bigger than one more billion.

Then there must be consequences.