I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Norway, and I care deeply about the future of my country, its people, its constitutional institutions, and its historical destiny. To me, Norway is not merely the country in which I reside or the jurisdiction under whose laws I live; it is the nation to which I owe my civic responsibility, my professional duty, and my personal commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law. For this reason, I cannot remain indifferent whenever I observe circumstances that may undermine public confidence in state institutions, weaken the foundations of equal justice, diminish governmental transparency, or raise legitimate concerns regarding adherence to the constitutional principles upon which Norwegian democracy is built.
The Norwegian people are the heirs to one of the world’s oldest and most distinguished Northern civilizations, carrying forward the legacy of the ancient Scandinavian peoples whose traditions of courage, honour, freedom, and personal responsibility have shaped the constitutional and cultural identity of the Kingdom of Norway for more than two and a half millennia. Throughout its long and remarkable history, Norway has developed institutions founded upon justice, public trust, democratic accountability, and respect for the law. This extraordinary historical heritage deserves not only admiration but also constant protection against every form of institutional abuse, political patronage, nepotism, administrative arbitrariness, and any practice capable of eroding the integrity of public governance.
My concerns arise neither from political considerations nor from personal disagreements with any individual or institution. They are founded exclusively upon my professional legal assessment of developments which, in my considered opinion, may gradually weaken public confidence in the constitutional order of the Kingdom of Norway. Whenever political influence, personal relationships, institutional loyalty, or family connections begin to appear more influential than professional merit, legal principles, and the public interest, every democratic society has a legitimate reason to undertake careful and objective self-examination. A constitutional state is not weakened by responsible criticism. On the contrary, it demonstrates its true strength by its willingness to examine legitimate concerns openly, impartially, and in accordance with the law.
As a professional lawyer educated within the classical traditions of legal scholarship and rigorous jurisprudence, where strict adherence to the law, evidentiary analysis, intellectual discipline, and personal responsibility constitute the highest professional values, I regard it as both my civic obligation and my professional duty to place my knowledge, experience, and qualifications at the service of the Kingdom of Norway. I neither seek to replace the constitutional authority of the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, the Public Prosecution Authority, Parliament, or the courts, nor do I claim powers belonging exclusively to those institutions. Rather, I respectfully offer independent professional assistance based upon many years of judicial service, criminal investigation, legal scholarship, and analytical research, with the sole objective of contributing to the establishment of objective truth and the further strengthening of the rule of law.
Accordingly, I address the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Norway not as an outside observer, but as a citizen who fully recognises his responsibility toward the Nation and its future generations. My objective is not to diminish confidence in Norway’s democratic institutions but, rather, to contribute to their continued strengthening through transparency, legality, accountability, and unwavering respect for constitutional governance. I firmly believe that truly great nations preserve their dignity not by concealing difficult questions, but by confronting them honestly, investigating them impartially, correcting institutional deficiencies where necessary, and continuously safeguarding the interests of their people, the integrity of the public treasury, and the enduring principles of constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
The status of a Norwegian citizen imposes on the subject of the Kingdom obligations to protect the sovereignty, legal traditions, and democratic structure of the state. A decline in the standards of executive branch transparency and the erosion of the principles of equal justice present a direct threat to the stability of constitutional institutions. Within the framework of fulfilling their civic and professional duty, the applicant expresses a legal position on the inadmissibility of compromises in matters regarding the rule of law and calls for strict adherence to constitutional guarantees.
The constitutional order of the Kingdom of Norway rests upon a centuries-old foundation of Scandinavian statehood, whose traditional values have historically been personal freedom, integrity, and irreproachable public service. It is hereby declared that the protection of the nation’s sovereign identity is inextricably linked to maintaining the absolute transparency of the state apparatus. Any manifestations of favoritism, nepotism, or the utilization of authority for personal interest constitute a direct assault on the core value systems of Norwegian society and must be suppressed within the framework of existing constitutional procedures for the sake of preserving historical continuity.
The modern Norwegian legal system functions on the basis of a unique model of accountability and high mutual trust between citizens and state institutions. Any forms of administrative arbitrariness, nepotism, or political lobbying undermine the foundations of this consensus accumulated by generations. This demand is aimed at eliminating systemic risks within the administrative environment, ensuring unconditional equality before the law, and preventing the degradation of legal standards that have historically determined the stability and independence of the Kingdom.
The stability of governing institutions in Norway has traditionally been guaranteed by strict adherence to the ethical principles of Northern civilization and rigorous legal procedures. Contemporary challenges demand enhanced monitoring for nepotism and the abuse of discretionary powers by public officials. From a legal standpoint, maintaining trust in the public sector is possible only through the complete eradication of backdoor practices, which imposes a duty upon civil society to exercise continuous legal oversight over the activities of executive and legislative bodies.
This legal position is formulated entirely outside the context of political expediency or individual disagreements with any public officials. It is based exclusively on an independent expert analysis of law enforcement and administrative practices, which has identified risks of a gradual erosion of public trust in the state institutions of the Kingdom. Objective professional criticism is viewed as a necessary tool of legal monitoring aimed at protecting the constitutional order. The true institutional resilience of a state is manifested in its capacity for impartial self-analysis and the elimination of destructive factors within the framework of the current legal field.
The applicant emphasizes the complete autonomy of their conclusions from any corporate, partisan, or personal interests. The sole legal basis for this submission is the protection of public order (ordre public) and the principle of meritocracy within the system of public governance. The prevalence of subjective factors—such as family ties, political loyalty, or personal preferences—over professional qualifications inevitably leads to a dysfunction of democratic procedures. Reviewing the stated arguments on their merits and in strict accordance with procedural norms constitutes a direct obligation of a state governed by the rule of law.
The stability of Norway’s constitutional system depends directly on the effectiveness of its internal self-regulation mechanisms and the readiness of its institutions for open legal dialogue. Expressing substantiated concerns regarding the transparency of public administration does not seek to discredit state authorities, but rather serves as a form of exercising civil oversight. A state governed by the rule of law maintains its legitimacy only so long as it is capable of transforming motivated criticism into legal solutions, thereby ensuring the supremacy of law and the priority of public interests over private preferences.
This submission originates from an individual formed within the classical doctrine of substantive and procedural law, where the core criteria are methodological rigor, the evidentiary framework, and professional ethics. Acting within the doctrine of assisting the administration of justice, the applicant offers their scientific and practical potential for the protection of the public law interests of the Kingdom of Norway. This initiative is not intended to substitute or restrict the prerogatives of the authorized executive or judicial bodies, but rather represents an external independent evaluation aimed at verifying legally significant facts and strengthening the rule of law.
While recognizing the exclusive competence of specialized institutions—including criminal prosecution bodies (ØKOKRIM), supervisory authorities, and the judicial system of the Kingdom—the applicant strictly delineates the boundaries of their procedural involvement. The objective of this engagement is to provide analytical support based on extensive experience in investigative and forensic-legal activities. The proposed legal assistance is complementary in nature and is directed solely at optimizing the process of establishing material truth, without any interference with the discretionary powers of state authorities.
The modern doctrine of the rule of law presupposes an effective synergy between state institutions and the qualified legal community. Utilizing professional experience in the fields of jurisprudence and judicial analysis to verify complex legal cases serves as a form of fulfilling a citizen's constitutional duty. The independent audit of legal risks offered to the authorized departments acts as an additional guarantee of objectivity in law enforcement practices and confirms the transparency of the entire legal system of the Kingdom.
This submission constitutes an act of exercising the sovereign rights and duties of a citizen deeply integrated into the legal field and historical destiny of the Kingdom of Norway. The applicant’s actions are dictated by the desire to minimize institutional risks and are aimed at the consolidation, rather than the destabilization, of existing democratic institutions. The strength of a state governed by the rule of law is verified by its readiness for the open resolution of systemic contradictions, which stands as the sole legitimate method for maintaining stability, ensuring the transparency of the state apparatus, and protecting the long-term interests of future generations of Norwegian society.
Engagement with the authorized executive and judicial bodies of the Kingdom is initiated exclusively for the purpose of ensuring legality, financial discipline, and the preservation of state assets. Concealing or ignoring indicators of dysfunction within the public administration system is regarded as a direct threat to national security and law and order. This initiative calls for an impartial legal audit, the results of which must reaffirm the supremacy of constitutional principles over any narrow departmental or private interests.
The dignity and sovereignty of Norway traditionally rest upon the principles of openness, meritocracy, and the unconditional accountability of governing institutions to civil society. Bringing complex legal precedents before the lawful consideration of competent departments serves as a form of constructive assistance to the state. Rectifying administrative deficiencies through transparent and impartial procedures strengthens trust in the jurisdiction and guarantees the inviolability of the foundations of constitutional democracy.
OFFICIAL SUBMISSION
AND PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL COOPERATION WITH THE PARLIAMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY AND THE COMPETENT STATE AUTHORITIES
ADDRESSED TO:
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY — THE STORTING
The Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs of the Storting
Kontroll- og konstitusjonskomiteen
The Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime
ØKOKRIM
The Norwegian Police Service
SUBMITTED BY:
Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence
Mayer Meir Kaltenbrunner
A professionally qualified lawyer and legal scholar;
Former Judge in Criminal Matters of the Supreme Court of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic;
Former Investigator for Particularly Important Cases within the Investigation Directorate of the Committee for State Security of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
Participant in the official investigation into the causes and circumstances of the technological catastrophe at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on 26 April 1986;
Former Member of the Parliamentary Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Combating Corruption within the Highest Echelons of State Power;
I, a retired Colonel of Justice, officially state that this special rank was conferred upon me in the USSR and is retained by me for life. Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union and my current permanent residence in the Kingdom of Norway, no state has stripped me of this rank, and I legally remain a retired Colonel of Justice.
Independent researcher, legal scholar, investigative author, and publicist specialising in corruption, public administration, integration policy, the lawful expenditure of public funds, and the constitutional accountability of public institutions.
SUBJECT OF THE SUBMISSION:
An official proposal to provide professional assistance, on a voluntary and entirely pro bono basis, in the conduct of a comprehensive financial, legal, criminal-investigative, and institutional inquiry into the possible unlawful use, misappropriation, diversion, or embezzlement of Norwegian state budget funds allocated through the Directorate of Integration and Diversity — IMDi — for integration programmes operating in the regions of Buskerud and Oslo during the period from 2000 to 2026.
The proposed inquiry should also encompass other significant matters that may be directly connected with the activities of members of the Gharahkhani family and with political, administrative, municipal, educational, public, organisational, or financial structures that may have been dependent upon, associated with, affiliated with, or otherwise connected to members of that family.
PRELIMINARY LEGAL CLARIFICATION
The present submission does not constitute a criminal indictment, a judicial determination, a prosecutorial decision, or a declaration that the criminal liability of any particular individual has already been legally established.
Nothing contained in this document should be interpreted as prejudging the guilt of any person or as replacing the independent procedural assessment that must be undertaken by the competent Norwegian law-enforcement, prosecutorial, supervisory, parliamentary, and judicial authorities.
The assessments, professional observations, concerns, hypotheses, and investigative directions set out in this submission represent the author’s independent legal and analytical conclusions. They identify circumstances that, in the author’s professional opinion, warrant a comprehensive, impartial, and institutionally independent examination by the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Norway.
The final establishment of facts, the evaluation of admissible evidence, the legal classification of particular acts or omissions, the identification of individual responsibility, and the adoption of any decision concerning the initiation of criminal proceedings fall exclusively within the lawful competence of the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, the Norwegian prosecuting authorities, and the courts of the Kingdom of Norway.
The purpose of this submission is therefore not to replace a formal investigation, predetermine its findings, or declare any person guilty in advance.
Its purpose is to propose a lawful professional framework within which a genuine, comprehensive, and effective investigation may be initiated and conducted.
This submission is also not based upon any request that Norwegian state authorities merely receive, archive, or administratively register a collection of privately compiled materials.
The central purpose of this document is fundamentally different.
It constitutes a formal offer by an experienced lawyer, legal scholar, former criminal judge, and former investigator for particularly important cases to provide direct professional assistance in the investigation, detection, legal analysis, and evidentiary reconstruction of possible offences involving the unlawful expenditure or misappropriation of public funds.
Such professional assistance would be provided exclusively within the framework of Norwegian law, under the authority and supervision of the competent Norwegian institutions, and with full respect for the presumption of innocence, procedural legality, institutional independence, confidentiality requirements, and the fundamental rights of all persons whose activities may become subject to examination.
Professional Experience Directly Relevant to the Present Memorandum
My professional knowledge, practical experience, and qualifications are founded not only upon many years of legal practice, investigative work, academic legal research, and constitutional law. From 1989 to 1991, I served as a member of the Parliamentary Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Counteracting Corruption. My work within this Commission provided me with a unique opportunity to participate directly in the investigation of some of the most extensive corruption cases of national importance involving the highest levels of state and party authority within the Soviet Union.
As a member of the Parliamentary Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Counteracting Corruption, I took an active part in the investigation of one of the largest anti-corruption proceedings of the late Soviet period, widely known as the "Cotton Affair." The parliamentary investigation examined systematic falsification of official state financial reporting, large-scale embezzlement of public funds, abuse of official authority, corruption at the highest levels of the Party and State administration, and the operation of entrenched corruption networks throughout the Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republics. This work required comprehensive legal analysis, examination of extensive financial and governmental documentation, careful evaluation of documentary evidence, and strict adherence to the principles of legality, objectivity, and parliamentary oversight.
My direct participation in investigations of such magnitude profoundly shaped my professional understanding of the mechanisms through which systemic corruption develops, public authority is abused, financial violations are concealed, and closed administrative and political structures are formed. It also provided me with a practical understanding of how entrenched corruption networks are capable of gradually undermining the effectiveness of public administration and eroding public confidence in state institutions. This experience ultimately convinced me that effective anti-corruption efforts are possible only through independent, professional, objective, and politically impartial investigations conducted strictly in accordance with the law and supported by reliable evidence.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, I continued my professional career as an expert in constitutional law, participating directly in the preparation of the Constitution of the independent State of Turkmenistan. My involvement in drafting the Fundamental Law of a newly sovereign state significantly expanded my practical expertise in constitutional development, the organization of public authority, the separation of powers, legislative drafting, public administration, and the functioning of democratic institutions governed by the rule of law.
Accordingly, the present Memorandum should not be interpreted as a political statement or an expression of personal opinion. It is founded upon decades of practical experience in investigative work, parliamentary anti-corruption oversight, constitutional law, and independent legal research acquired through participation in some of the most significant corruption investigations conducted at the state level. It is precisely this combination of professional experience that enables me to submit this official proposal to the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Norway, offering my independent expert assistance in the interests of strengthening the rule of law, safeguarding public finances, ensuring transparency within public institutions, and further reinforcing the constitutional principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
I. OFFICIAL ADDRESS TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY
Honourable Members of the Storting,
Honourable Members of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs,
Honourable Heads of the Competent Law Enforcement and Supervisory Authorities of the Kingdom of Norway,
I respectfully submit this official proposal in my capacity as a professional lawyer, legal scholar, former criminal court judge, former investigator for particularly important criminal cases, and an independent researcher with many years of practical experience in the investigation of complex corruption schemes, financial crimes, abuse of official authority, institutional misconduct, and offences involving the unlawful use of public funds.
Throughout my professional career I have participated in the investigation of particularly serious and exceptionally complex cases requiring comprehensive legal analysis, financial reconstruction, evidentiary evaluation, institutional assessment, and the examination of extensive documentary records.
It is precisely this professional experience that now forms the basis of my present proposal.
The purpose of this submission is not to request that Norwegian authorities merely receive, archive, or formally register documents previously prepared by me.
Nor is the purpose of this submission to request that state authorities rely upon my personal conclusions in place of conducting their own independent investigation.
The purpose of this submission is fundamentally different.
I hereby formally offer my professional knowledge, investigative experience, legal expertise, and analytical qualifications for direct participation in an official investigation which, in my professional opinion, is capable of establishing the objective truth concerning the use of substantial public financial resources allocated over many years through the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi).
More specifically, I respectfully propose my direct professional participation in a comprehensive investigation into the possible unlawful allocation, diversion, misuse, misappropriation, embezzlement, or other improper use of Norwegian public funds distributed through IMDi for integration programmes implemented within the counties and municipalities of Buskerud and Oslo during the period extending from 2000 through 2026.
This proposal is not limited to a review of accounting documentation or financial reports.
Rather, it envisages a comprehensive multidisciplinary investigation incorporating legal analysis, financial examination, institutional review, documentary verification, organisational mapping, and the reconstruction of administrative decision-making processes.
In my professional opinion, only such a comprehensive investigation is capable of establishing whether the allocated public funds were administered strictly in accordance with Norwegian law, whether they achieved the objectives for which Parliament appropriated them, and whether the principles of legality, transparency, accountability, equality before the law, and sound public administration were fully respected throughout the entire period under review.
Accordingly, I respectfully propose to work, where authorised by the competent Norwegian authorities, in close professional cooperation with the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, parliamentary oversight bodies, financial control authorities, auditing institutions, and any other competent public institutions designated to participate in such an investigation.
My proposal is not confined to identifying isolated irregularities.
Its principal objective is to assist in determining whether the available evidence demonstrates the existence of a broader institutional pattern involving the management, allocation, supervision, and expenditure of public integration funds over a period exceeding two decades.
I further propose to participate in the professional examination of official records, financial documentation, governmental decisions, municipal resolutions, contracts, grant agreements, procurement documentation, employment records, administrative correspondence, institutional reporting, and any other documentary material lawfully made available by the competent Norwegian authorities.
Where legally authorised, I am prepared to assist in reconstructing financial flows, identifying institutional relationships, analysing documentary inconsistencies, evaluating evidentiary material, and preparing independent legal assessments capable of supporting the investigative work of the competent authorities.
My proposal is therefore directed toward active professional participation in an official investigation conducted entirely within the framework of Norwegian constitutional principles, statutory law, criminal procedure, administrative law, and the universally recognised principles of the rule of law.
I seek neither political influence nor personal advantage.
I request neither public office, governmental authority, financial remuneration, nor institutional privilege.
My sole objective is to place my professional qualifications, investigative experience, and legal expertise at the disposal of the Kingdom of Norway in the interests of protecting public finances, strengthening institutional accountability, safeguarding public confidence in democratic governance, and ensuring that any investigation undertaken is conducted thoroughly, objectively, independently, and in full compliance with Norwegian law.
II. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED INVESTIGATION
The principal objective of the proposed investigation should be the comprehensive, independent, and legally structured examination of the allocation, administration, supervision, and actual expenditure of Norwegian state budget funds distributed through the Directorate of Integration and Diversity — IMDi — for integration-related programmes, projects, institutions, organisations, educational initiatives, municipal activities, and associated public or semi-public structures operating in Buskerud and Oslo during the period from 2000 to 2026.
The investigation should not be restricted to a formal comparison of approved budgets and submitted financial reports.
Such a limited approach would be insufficient to determine whether the public funds in question were used lawfully, effectively, transparently, and in accordance with the objectives for which they were originally appropriated.
The proposed investigation should therefore examine the entire chain of public financial administration, beginning with the political and administrative decisions authorising the allocation of funds and continuing through every subsequent stage of their distribution, transfer, contractual use, institutional expenditure, internal supervision, reporting, auditing, and final accounting.
Particular attention should be paid to determining whether the funds allocated for integration purposes were actually used for the benefit of the intended recipients, including refugees, asylum seekers, newly arrived immigrants, vulnerable families, children, young people, and adults participating in educational, linguistic, employment, social adaptation, and civic integration programmes.
The investigation should establish whether the declared objectives of the relevant programmes corresponded to the services actually provided.
It should further determine whether the official reports submitted by municipalities, organisations, educational institutions, programme administrators, contractors, and grant recipients accurately reflected the real scope, quality, duration, and public value of the activities allegedly financed through state budget allocations.
A central investigative question should be whether certain integration programmes existed primarily in substance or merely in administrative form.
This distinction is of fundamental importance.
A programme may appear formally compliant on paper while, in practice, providing services of inadequate quality, employing insufficiently qualified personnel, failing to reach the intended beneficiaries, duplicating existing activities, or functioning primarily as a mechanism for the continued receipt and internal redistribution of public funding.
Accordingly, the investigation should determine whether any public funds were directed toward programmes that produced limited, negligible, or unverifiable public benefit while simultaneously generating stable employment, institutional influence, contractual advantages, or financial opportunities for a restricted circle of individuals, families, political associates, organisational partners, or affiliated entities.
The inquiry should also examine whether public integration funding may have been used, directly or indirectly, to establish or maintain systems of personal loyalty, political dependence, institutional favouritism, privileged employment, or mutual protection.
This examination should include an assessment of whether individuals connected through family relationships, party structures, municipal networks, educational institutions, non-governmental organisations, advisory bodies, or administrative positions received preferential access to public employment, contracts, grants, project leadership, consultancy roles, or other publicly financed opportunities.
The purpose of such an examination would not be to criminalise ordinary professional, political, or family relationships.
Rather, it would be to determine whether any such relationships influenced the lawful and impartial distribution of public resources, undermined fair competition, distorted administrative decision-making, or created actual or potential conflicts of interest.
The investigation should therefore identify all significant decision-makers, intermediaries, recipients, programme administrators, project leaders, consultants, contractors, organisational representatives, and politically connected individuals who participated in the approval, distribution, management, or supervision of the relevant funds.
For each significant allocation, the investigation should determine:
who authorised the expenditure;
on what legal and administrative basis the decision was made;
which institution or organisation received the funds;
which individuals exercised actual control over the funds;
what contractual or programme obligations were imposed;
what services or results were promised;
what services or results were actually delivered;
what evidence was submitted to confirm performance;
who verified the accuracy of that evidence;
whether independent audits or inspections were conducted;
and whether any irregularities, warnings, complaints, conflicts of interest, or failures of oversight were recorded, ignored, concealed, or insufficiently investigated.
The investigation should also examine whether public authorities exercised adequate control over organisations and institutions receiving repeated or long-term financial support.
Where the same recipients, related entities, or affiliated networks obtained funding over many years, the competent authorities should assess whether such continuity resulted from objectively demonstrated public value or whether it reflected entrenched administrative relationships, political protection, institutional inertia, personal influence, or a lack of genuine competition.
A separate line of inquiry should concern the possible fragmentation of public funding.
The investigation should determine whether larger financial allocations were divided among multiple organisations, projects, contracts, or budget categories in a manner that reduced transparency, avoided enhanced scrutiny, weakened procurement controls, or made it more difficult to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of the funds.
It should also establish whether organisations or projects that appeared legally separate were, in practice, controlled by the same individuals, families, associates, political networks, or institutional groupings.
The competent authorities should further investigate whether any funds were transferred through chains of intermediary organisations, subcontractors, educational providers, consulting arrangements, temporary projects, or nominally independent entities without sufficient justification or measurable public benefit.
The proposed inquiry should include a complete reconstruction of the financial and administrative architecture of the relevant integration programmes.
This reconstruction should make it possible to identify not only individual irregularities but also recurring patterns, systemic weaknesses, and institutional mechanisms that may have allowed questionable practices to continue over an extended period.
The investigation should therefore be historical as well as contemporary.
It should examine the development of the relevant structures from 2000 onward, identify changes in personnel, institutional control, political influence, funding models, reporting practices, and administrative responsibility, and determine whether similar individuals or connected networks remained influential throughout successive periods.
Particular attention should be given to situations in which individuals moved between political organisations, municipal bodies, publicly funded institutions, educational structures, advisory positions, non-governmental organisations, and other entities involved in integration policy or public funding.
Such movements are not unlawful in themselves.
However, they may be highly relevant where they reveal repeated patterns of influence, preferential access, informal control, reciprocal appointments, or the concentration of decision-making authority within a limited circle.
The proposed investigation should ultimately provide a clear and evidence-based answer to several fundamental questions.
Were the public funds allocated through IMDi used for their intended lawful purposes?
Did the relevant programmes produce measurable and socially meaningful integration outcomes?
Were the administrative and financial decisions made impartially and transparently?
Were conflicts of interest properly disclosed and managed?
Did any individuals or affiliated networks receive unjustified advantages?
Were supervisory mechanisms effective?
Were warnings or complaints properly examined?
And, where irregularities occurred, were they isolated administrative failures or elements of a broader and more persistent system?
These questions are of direct public importance.
They concern not only financial legality but also the constitutional principles of equality before the law, responsible government, parliamentary accountability, public trust, and the proper stewardship of national resources.
For these reasons, the investigation should be conducted with full institutional independence, professional competence, procedural fairness, and access to all legally relevant records necessary to establish the objective truth.
III. PROFESSIONAL BASIS FOR MY PROPOSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION
The present proposal is founded not merely upon academic knowledge or theoretical legal education, but upon many years of practical professional experience acquired through service within judicial, investigative, governmental, and parliamentary institutions, as well as through decades of independent legal and analytical research devoted to public administration, corruption, organised institutional misconduct, financial accountability, and the constitutional responsibility of public authorities.
Throughout my professional career I have served in positions requiring the highest standards of legal analysis, procedural discipline, evidentiary assessment, and independent decision-making.
My legal education was completed at the Faculty of Law of Tashkent State University, where I received comprehensive academic training in constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure, civil law, administrative law, international law, forensic science, criminology, and judicial practice.
Following my graduation, I completed specialised professional training within the Investigation Directorate of the Committee for State Security of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where I participated in the investigation of particularly serious criminal matters requiring complex evidentiary reconstruction, witness examination, documentary analysis, and the lawful application of criminal procedure.
One of the most significant periods of my investigative career was my participation in the official investigation following the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on 26 April 1986.
That investigation required work under extraordinary circumstances involving multiple governmental institutions, scientific experts, technical specialists, forensic investigators, prosecutors, and state commissions.
Participation in such an investigation provided invaluable practical experience in the coordination of multidisciplinary investigations, the evaluation of extensive documentary evidence, the reconstruction of factual events, and the preparation of legally sustainable investigative conclusions based exclusively upon verified evidence.
Subsequently, I served within the judicial system as a Criminal Court Judge of the Supreme Court of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic.
Judicial service imposed the highest obligation of impartiality, legal precision, independence of judgment, and strict adherence to the rule of law.
Every judicial decision required the objective assessment of evidence, the careful interpretation of statutory provisions, and the balanced application of legal principles without prejudice, political influence, or personal interest.
In addition to judicial service, I later participated in parliamentary activities connected with the prevention and investigation of corruption at the highest levels of public administration.
As a member of the Parliamentary Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR responsible for combating corruption within senior governmental structures, I became directly involved in the examination of complex institutional mechanisms through which abuses of public authority, administrative misconduct, unlawful financial practices, and corruption could develop within state institutions.
These professional experiences fundamentally shaped my understanding of how institutional corruption frequently differs from ordinary criminal conduct.
In many instances, corruption does not manifest itself through a single unlawful transaction.
Rather, it develops gradually through interconnected administrative decisions, informal relationships, reciprocal appointments, undisclosed conflicts of interest, preferential treatment, institutional dependency, and the progressive erosion of effective public oversight.
Such mechanisms often remain concealed beneath outwardly lawful administrative procedures.
For this reason, investigations into institutional corruption require considerably broader analytical methods than those employed in ordinary criminal investigations.
They demand not only financial auditing but also legal analysis, organisational mapping, documentary reconstruction, chronological examination of decision-making processes, evaluation of administrative discretion, identification of institutional relationships, and the careful assessment of patterns that may reveal systematic rather than isolated irregularities.
Following my arrival in the Kingdom of Norway, I devoted many years to the independent study of Norwegian public administration, integration policy, public financing mechanisms, administrative law, constitutional accountability, municipal governance, and the practical implementation of state-funded integration programmes.
This work has not been conducted on behalf of any political party, governmental institution, commercial organisation, or private interest group.
It has been undertaken entirely as an independent academic and legal research project motivated by professional responsibility and by a commitment to the principles of transparency, legality, accountability, and democratic governance.
During this period, I have accumulated and systematically analysed an extensive body of publicly available legislation, administrative regulations, governmental reports, parliamentary documents, municipal records, judicial decisions, financial information, policy papers, academic publications, official statistics, institutional correspondence, and other documentary material relevant to the operation of publicly financed integration programmes.
The analytical conclusions presented in this submission therefore arise from long-term legal research rather than from isolated observations or individual incidents.
They reflect a comprehensive examination of institutional structures developed over many years through comparative legal analysis, documentary review, chronological reconstruction, and professional investigative methodology.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that my professional background may constitute a valuable supplementary resource for any official investigation that the competent Norwegian authorities may decide to initiate.
I do not seek to replace the work of Norwegian investigators, prosecutors, auditors, parliamentary committees, or judicial institutions.
On the contrary, I expressly recognise that the exclusive authority to conduct criminal investigations, evaluate evidence, initiate proceedings, and determine legal responsibility belongs solely to the competent institutions of the Kingdom of Norway.
My proposal is intended only to supplement those efforts by placing at the disposal of the competent authorities my professional investigative experience, legal expertise, analytical methodology, and many years of specialised research concerning the institutional and financial mechanisms that are the subject of this submission.
Should the competent authorities consider such assistance to be useful, I remain fully prepared to cooperate openly, professionally, objectively, and exclusively within the legal framework established by the Constitution and the laws of the Kingdom of Norway.
I further declare that my participation, if accepted, would be provided entirely on a voluntary basis and without any expectation of salary, financial compensation, personal privilege, political appointment, or institutional benefit.
My sole objective is to assist, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in establishing the objective truth, protecting public finances, strengthening public confidence in democratic institutions, and contributing to the proper administration of justice in accordance with the principles of legality, impartiality, and the rule of law.
IV. SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND PRINCIPAL DIRECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED INVESTIGATION
In my considered professional opinion, any investigation into the possible unlawful allocation, administration, or expenditure of public integration funds should not be confined to isolated financial transactions or individual administrative decisions.
Rather, it should be organised as a comprehensive institutional inquiry designed to establish the complete factual, legal, financial, and administrative framework within which the relevant decisions were made and implemented.
The investigation should therefore proceed simultaneously along several complementary and mutually reinforcing lines of inquiry.
The first direction should involve a complete reconstruction of the financial architecture governing the allocation and expenditure of state funds distributed through the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi).
Such reconstruction should identify every stage of the financial process, beginning with parliamentary appropriations and governmental budgetary decisions, continuing through ministerial and administrative distribution mechanisms, and concluding with the ultimate expenditure of funds by municipalities, educational institutions, non-governmental organisations, contractors, consultants, programme administrators, and other recipients.
Each stage of this financial chain should be documented and independently verified.
The investigation should determine not only where the funds were transferred but also who exercised actual authority over their allocation, administration, approval, supervision, accounting, and verification.
The second direction should concern the legal basis upon which individual funding decisions were adopted.
The competent authorities should establish whether grants, contracts, subsidies, procurement procedures, project approvals, consultancy agreements, and institutional appointments fully complied with Norwegian statutory law, administrative regulations, procurement legislation, financial control requirements, conflict-of-interest provisions, and generally recognised principles of good public administration.
Where discretionary administrative powers were exercised, the investigation should determine whether such discretion was applied objectively, proportionately, transparently, and without improper influence or preferential treatment.
The third direction should focus upon institutional governance.
Every public institution, municipal authority, educational establishment, integration programme, advisory body, or publicly financed organisation receiving significant or recurring financial support should be examined with regard to its internal management, decision-making structures, supervisory mechanisms, financial controls, reporting procedures, and accountability systems.
Particular attention should be given to determining whether effective safeguards existed to prevent conflicts of interest, favouritism, nepotism, abuse of authority, or the concentration of financial influence within a limited group of decision-makers.
The fourth direction should involve a comprehensive examination of the actual effectiveness of the publicly financed programmes.
The investigation should determine whether measurable public objectives were achieved, whether integration outcomes corresponded to the level of public expenditure, and whether the services allegedly provided were capable of producing the social, educational, linguistic, and employment-related improvements described in official reports.
Where programmes repeatedly received substantial public funding despite producing limited or unverifiable results, the reasons for such continued financial support should be carefully examined.
The fifth direction should concern documentary verification.
Every significant financial decision should be supported by original documentation, including grant applications, administrative decisions, contracts, procurement records, invoices, accounting documents, payroll records, attendance records, programme reports, inspection reports, audit findings, internal correspondence, and any additional documentary material capable of establishing the legality and factual accuracy of the transactions concerned.
The authenticity, completeness, consistency, and evidentiary value of such documentation should be independently assessed.
Where documentary inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions, or unexplained discrepancies are identified, those matters should receive detailed investigative attention.
The sixth direction should consist of a comprehensive analysis of institutional relationships.
The investigation should determine whether individuals occupying positions within political parties, municipal administrations, educational institutions, advisory councils, publicly financed organisations, or other relevant structures simultaneously exercised influence over multiple stages of the allocation, supervision, implementation, or evaluation of publicly funded programmes.
Particular attention should be devoted to identifying situations in which personal, political, organisational, or family relationships may have created actual or perceived conflicts of interest capable of influencing administrative decision-making.
The purpose of such analysis is not to question legitimate professional cooperation.
Rather, it is to establish whether institutional independence, impartiality, and equal treatment were consistently maintained throughout the relevant administrative processes.
The seventh direction should involve chronological reconstruction.
The competent authorities should identify how the relevant institutional structures evolved between 2000 and 2026, whether recurring patterns of administration emerged over time, whether the same individuals or affiliated networks retained significant influence across successive periods, and whether previously identified weaknesses were effectively corrected or allowed to persist.
This chronological analysis is essential because institutional misconduct, where it exists, rarely develops instantaneously.
More commonly, it evolves gradually through repeated administrative practices that become increasingly normalised in the absence of effective oversight.
The eighth direction should concern the evaluation of supervisory mechanisms themselves.
The investigation should determine whether existing systems of governmental oversight, internal auditing, municipal control, parliamentary scrutiny, external inspection, and financial accountability functioned effectively throughout the relevant period.
If deficiencies are identified, the investigation should establish whether such failures resulted from administrative negligence, inadequate legal regulation, insufficient institutional capacity, ineffective supervision, or other structural causes.
Finally, the investigation should seek to identify not merely individual procedural violations but also any broader systemic deficiencies that may have affected the lawful administration of public integration funding.
Where recurring structural weaknesses are established, the competent authorities should consider whether legislative amendments, administrative reforms, enhanced financial controls, strengthened auditing procedures, improved transparency requirements, or additional parliamentary oversight mechanisms may be necessary to reduce the risk of similar problems arising in the future.
Accordingly, the proposed investigation should pursue two complementary objectives.
The first objective is retrospective: to determine with precision whether any unlawful conduct, administrative irregularities, financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, or institutional failures occurred during the period under review.
The second objective is prospective: to strengthen the integrity, transparency, efficiency, and public accountability of Norway’s integration system by identifying institutional reforms capable of preventing comparable problems from occurring in the future.
Only an investigation conducted with this breadth, depth, and methodological rigor can provide the Parliament of the Kingdom of Norway and the Norwegian public with a complete, objective, and legally reliable understanding of how public integration funds were administered over more than two decades and whether those funds consistently served the public interest for which they were originally appropriated.
V. PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSIONAL COOPERATION WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY
Should the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Norway determine that my professional participation may assist the proposed investigation, I respectfully submit that such cooperation should be organised strictly within the constitutional and statutory framework governing Norwegian public administration, criminal procedure, administrative investigations, financial supervision, and the protection of fundamental rights.
My role, if accepted, would not be that of a public prosecutor, police officer, judicial authority, or governmental decision-maker.
Nor would I seek to exercise any executive authority reserved exclusively to the competent institutions of the Norwegian State.
All investigative powers, procedural decisions, evidentiary assessments, prosecutorial determinations, judicial rulings, and administrative measures must remain solely within the lawful competence of the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, the prosecuting authorities, the Storting, and the courts of the Kingdom of Norway.
My participation would instead be confined to the provision of professional legal, analytical, investigative, and methodological assistance wherever such expertise may lawfully contribute to the clarification of factual circumstances and the reconstruction of complex financial and institutional relationships.
Should such cooperation be authorised, I would be prepared to assist in the systematic examination of documentary evidence, the legal analysis of administrative decisions, the chronological reconstruction of institutional events, the identification of financial relationships, the preparation of analytical reports, and the evaluation of documentary consistency across multiple governmental and municipal sources.
I would also be prepared to assist in identifying investigative priorities, formulating analytical hypotheses, reconstructing administrative decision-making processes, and examining institutional structures that may not be immediately apparent through conventional financial auditing alone.
Throughout any such cooperation, I would remain fully bound by the principles of objectivity, professional independence, confidentiality, procedural legality, and respect for the constitutional rights of every individual whose activities may become subject to examination.
I expressly recognise that every person remains entitled to the full protection of the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise through lawful judicial proceedings.
Accordingly, no professional opinion, analytical assessment, or investigative hypothesis prepared by me should ever be interpreted as constituting a judicial determination of guilt or legal responsibility.
My contribution would be exclusively advisory, analytical, and evidentiary in character.
The final evaluation of all evidence, the legal qualification of any conduct, the initiation of criminal proceedings, the adoption of administrative measures, and the determination of legal responsibility must remain entirely within the jurisdiction of the competent Norwegian authorities.
I further undertake that any professional assistance provided by me would be based exclusively upon verifiable documentary evidence, applicable legislation, recognised investigative methodology, objective legal reasoning, and internationally accepted principles governing the rule of law.
No analytical conclusion would be based upon political considerations, ideological preferences, personal relationships, media narratives, or subjective assumptions unsupported by reliable evidence.
Should conflicting evidence arise during the course of the investigation, I would fully support its careful examination and would revise or refine any analytical conclusion where objectively justified by newly established facts.
Professional integrity requires that investigative conclusions remain subordinate to the evidence rather than the evidence being adapted to predetermined conclusions.
This principle has governed my professional work throughout my entire legal career and would continue to govern any future cooperation with the competent Norwegian authorities.
I further recognise that investigations of this nature frequently involve highly sensitive information concerning public administration, financial transactions, contractual relationships, personal data, internal governmental communications, and confidential institutional documentation.
Accordingly, I undertake to observe all applicable Norwegian legislation governing confidentiality, official secrecy, data protection, privacy, evidentiary handling, document security, and procedural integrity.
Any access to confidential materials would be exercised solely to the extent authorised by law and exclusively for purposes directly connected with the investigation.
No information obtained through such cooperation would be disclosed, reproduced, transmitted, published, or otherwise used outside the lawful scope of the authorised investigative process without the express permission of the competent authorities.
I also acknowledge that successful investigations of complex institutional and financial matters require close interdisciplinary cooperation.
Accordingly, I would welcome professional collaboration with investigators, prosecutors, auditors, forensic accountants, financial experts, procurement specialists, public administration experts, constitutional lawyers, municipal governance specialists, information technology professionals, and any other experts whose knowledge may assist in establishing the objective truth.
The complexity of modern public administration often requires the integration of multiple professional disciplines.
Financial evidence alone rarely provides a complete understanding of institutional decision-making.
Likewise, legal analysis alone cannot fully explain administrative practices without corresponding documentary, financial, organisational, and historical reconstruction.
For this reason, I believe that the proposed investigation would benefit from a multidisciplinary methodology in which legal, financial, administrative, forensic, and analytical expertise operate in close coordination under the leadership of the competent Norwegian authorities.
Finally, I reaffirm that my participation, if accepted, would be provided entirely without financial remuneration, contractual compensation, political appointment, institutional privilege, or personal benefit of any kind.
I seek no employment, consultancy agreement, governmental position, or public recognition.
My only objective is to contribute my professional experience in support of an impartial, comprehensive, and legally sound investigation conducted in the public interest.
Should my expertise prove useful, I would regard such cooperation not as a personal distinction but as the fulfilment of my professional duty to assist in protecting the rule of law, safeguarding public resources, strengthening democratic accountability, and supporting the proper administration of justice within the Kingdom of Norway.
In my respectful opinion, cooperation founded upon legality, transparency, mutual professional respect, and institutional independence represents the most effective means of ensuring that any investigation undertaken will command the confidence of Parliament, the competent authorities, and the Norwegian public alike.
VI. LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND PUBLIC-INTEREST SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED INVESTIGATION
The investigation proposed in this submission extends far beyond the examination of individual financial transactions, administrative decisions, or isolated institutional practices.
Its broader significance lies in the protection of the constitutional foundations upon which democratic governance, responsible public administration, and the rule of law within the Kingdom of Norway are established.
Every democratic state derives its legitimacy not merely from periodic elections or formal constitutional structures, but from the continuous confidence of its citizens that public authority is exercised lawfully, transparently, impartially, and exclusively in the public interest.
That confidence depends upon the effective accountability of governmental institutions and upon the willingness of the State to examine, without fear or favour, any credible circumstances that may indicate serious institutional deficiencies or unlawful conduct.
Where substantial public funds are allocated over many years for programmes intended to advance integration, social inclusion, education, employment, language acquisition, and equal participation in society, the State assumes a corresponding constitutional responsibility to ensure that such resources are administered strictly in accordance with the law and solely for the benefit of the public purposes for which Parliament authorised their expenditure.
Public funding is never the property of the institutions administering it.
Nor is it the property of political parties, public officials, municipalities, contractors, programme administrators, consultants, or any private organisation receiving governmental support.
Public funds remain the property of society as a whole.
Every public official entrusted with the administration of such resources therefore acts as a fiduciary of the Norwegian people and is bound by the highest standards of legality, integrity, impartiality, transparency, and financial responsibility.
For this reason, any comprehensive investigation into the administration of public funds necessarily serves interests extending well beyond the identification of individual irregularities.
It strengthens democratic institutions by demonstrating that no administrative structure, publicly financed programme, governmental body, or politically influential individual stands beyond lawful scrutiny.
Equally important, such an investigation protects those institutions and public officials who have acted lawfully and conscientiously.
Where allegations remain unexamined, uncertainty inevitably undermines public confidence in both the innocent and the guilty alike.
An independent and professionally conducted investigation therefore serves the interests of justice by distinguishing objectively between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct through the careful evaluation of verifiable evidence rather than assumption, speculation, or political controversy.
The constitutional value of such an investigation also lies in its preventive function.
Experience in many democratic jurisdictions demonstrates that transparency itself constitutes one of the most effective safeguards against corruption, administrative abuse, institutional favouritism, and the unlawful concentration of public power.
Institutions that recognise the realistic possibility of independent scrutiny are generally more likely to maintain rigorous internal controls, accurate documentation, lawful procurement practices, and effective systems of financial accountability.
Accordingly, the proposed investigation should not be understood solely as an examination of past events.
It should equally be regarded as an opportunity to strengthen the future resilience of Norwegian public administration by identifying structural weaknesses before they develop into more serious institutional problems.
Where deficiencies are identified, appropriate legislative, administrative, financial, organisational, or procedural reforms may be considered by the competent authorities in order to reinforce transparency, improve oversight, eliminate unnecessary risks, and ensure the more effective protection of public resources.
Such reforms would not represent an admission of institutional failure.
Rather, they would demonstrate the capacity of a mature constitutional democracy to improve its own institutions through lawful self-examination and responsible public accountability.
The proposed investigation is therefore entirely consistent with internationally recognised principles of democratic governance, including transparency in public administration, equality before the law, accountability of public officials, protection of public finances, institutional integrity, and respect for human rights.
These principles are reflected not only within Norwegian constitutional practice but also within broader European legal traditions and internationally accepted standards governing responsible public administration.
In this context, the proposed investigation should be viewed not as a challenge to the authority of the Norwegian State, but as an affirmation of the strength of its constitutional institutions.
The willingness of democratic authorities to investigate matters of legitimate public concern openly, professionally, and impartially is itself evidence of institutional confidence rather than institutional weakness.
Conversely, the failure to examine credible concerns involving substantial public resources may gradually diminish public trust, encourage speculation, weaken confidence in governmental oversight, and create unnecessary doubts concerning the integrity of public institutions.
For these reasons, an objective and independent investigation serves not only legal interests but also broader constitutional, democratic, and societal interests.
It demonstrates that public authority remains accountable to the law, that democratic institutions are capable of correcting their own deficiencies, and that every public official, regardless of position, influence, or political affiliation, remains subject to the same legal standards governing all citizens.
In my respectful opinion, this principle constitutes one of the defining characteristics of every genuine constitutional democracy.
The investigation proposed in this submission is therefore intended not merely to establish historical facts, but to reinforce public confidence in the enduring principles of legality, transparency, institutional responsibility, democratic accountability, and the rule of law.
Ultimately, the true measure of a democratic society is not the absence of allegations or criticism.
Rather, it is the willingness of its institutions to examine such matters objectively, impartially, and courageously whenever credible circumstances require independent legal scrutiny.
For this reason, I respectfully submit that the investigation proposed herein represents an opportunity to strengthen—not weaken—the constitutional order of the Kingdom of Norway by reaffirming the enduring principle that public trust is best preserved through lawful accountability, institutional transparency, and equal justice under the law.
VII. CONCLUDING DECLARATION AND FORMAL PROPOSAL TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY
Having regard to the considerations set forth above, I respectfully submit this proposal to the Parliament of the Kingdom of Norway and to the competent Norwegian authorities in the sincere belief that the matters addressed herein warrant careful, objective, and professionally independent examination.
The proposal contained in this submission is not motivated by political interests, personal hostility, ideological considerations, or any expectation of individual benefit.
Its sole purpose is to assist, insofar as the competent authorities may deem appropriate, in ensuring that public resources entrusted by the Norwegian people are administered strictly in accordance with the Constitution, the laws of the Kingdom of Norway, and the universally recognised principles of democratic governance and the rule of law.
For more than two decades, substantial public funds have been allocated to integration policies, educational programmes, municipal initiatives, social projects, and related activities intended to facilitate the successful integration of refugees and immigrants into Norwegian society.
The scale, duration, and public importance of these financial commitments create, in my respectful opinion, a corresponding obligation to ensure that every allocation has been administered lawfully, transparently, efficiently, and exclusively for the public purposes authorised by Parliament.
Where questions of legitimate public concern arise regarding the administration of such resources, the most appropriate response within a constitutional democracy is neither speculation nor political controversy.
It is an impartial, evidence-based, professionally conducted, and legally regulated investigation capable of establishing the objective facts.
Such an investigation serves the interests of every participant.
It protects the rights of individuals whose conduct has been entirely lawful.
It safeguards public confidence in governmental institutions.
It strengthens democratic accountability.
It reinforces the integrity of public administration.
And, where necessary, it enables the competent authorities to identify deficiencies requiring legal, administrative, financial, or institutional correction.
For these reasons, I respectfully propose that the competent Norwegian authorities consider establishing a comprehensive multidisciplinary investigation into the matters described throughout this submission.
Should such an investigation be initiated, I hereby reaffirm my willingness to cooperate fully, openly, professionally, and exclusively within the legal framework established by Norwegian law.
I am prepared to provide my professional knowledge, investigative experience, legal expertise, analytical methodology, documentary research, and practical assistance in any manner considered appropriate by the competent authorities.
Such assistance would be provided voluntarily, independently, and entirely without financial remuneration or personal advantage.
I seek neither public office, governmental appointment, contractual engagement, nor institutional privilege.
My only purpose is to contribute, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to the establishment of the objective truth and to the protection of the constitutional principles upon which the Kingdom of Norway is founded.
I also wish to emphasise that the present submission should not be interpreted as expressing any lack of confidence in the constitutional institutions of Norway.
On the contrary, it reflects my confidence that the Norwegian legal system possesses both the institutional maturity and the constitutional strength necessary to examine matters of significant public importance fairly, independently, and in accordance with the law.
Throughout my professional life, I have consistently believed that the greatest strength of a democratic society is not the absence of criticism or allegations.
Rather, it is the willingness of its institutions to examine such matters openly, objectively, and courageously whenever credible circumstances justify independent scrutiny.
The rule of law derives its authority not from declarations but from its practical application.
Public confidence is preserved not by avoiding difficult questions but by answering them through lawful procedures, objective evidence, and institutional transparency.
For this reason, I respectfully submit that the investigation proposed herein should be viewed not as an expression of distrust but as an opportunity to reinforce the credibility, accountability, and democratic legitimacy of the institutions of the Kingdom of Norway.
Regardless of the conclusions ultimately reached, an independent and professionally conducted investigation would itself constitute a powerful affirmation that no institution, no public authority, no publicly funded programme, and no individual exercising public responsibility stands beyond the reach of lawful accountability.
Such a principle represents one of the highest achievements of every constitutional democracy.
It affirms that equality before the law is not merely an abstract constitutional ideal but a practical guarantee extended equally to every citizen, every public institution, and every holder of public office.
In respectfully submitting this proposal, I therefore reaffirm my complete confidence in the constitutional order of the Kingdom of Norway, my unwavering respect for its legal institutions, and my sincere hope that this initiative may contribute, however modestly, to the continued strengthening of transparency, accountability, institutional integrity, and public confidence in Norwegian democracy.
CONCLUSION
SUPPLEMENTARY JUSTIFICATION OF THE OFFICIAL PROPOSAL
The present proposal is based neither upon political convictions, personal interests, nor any desire to engage in public controversy. It is founded exclusively upon my many years of professional legal practice, my extensive experience in the investigation of particularly serious criminal offences, and my long-term independent legal research into the functioning of publicly funded integration programmes and the institutional mechanisms governing their administration.
As a professionally qualified lawyer, former Criminal Court Judge, former Investigator for Particularly Important Cases, and specialist in the prevention and investigation of corruption, I have reached the professional conclusion that the totality of the circumstances identified during my research warrants an independent, comprehensive, and institutionally impartial investigation by the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Norway.
Following many years of systematic legal and analytical research, I have developed professionally substantiated concerns regarding the mechanisms governing the allocation of public funds, the effectiveness of financial oversight, the possible existence of conflicts of interest, and the role played by certain political, administrative, and publicly funded institutional structures in the implementation of Norwegian integration programmes. In my considered professional opinion, these issues deserve careful, objective, and comprehensive examination through all investigative, supervisory, and auditing mechanisms available under Norwegian law.
Accordingly, I hereby formally offer my professional assistance to the authorities of the Kingdom of Norway entirely on a pro bono basis, without financial remuneration, political benefit, institutional privilege, or any other form of personal advantage.
My intention is not to replace the constitutional authority of the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, the Norwegian Prosecution Authority, the Parliament, or the courts.
On the contrary, I respectfully offer my professional expertise, investigative experience, legal methodology, and analytical capabilities as an additional independent expert resource that may assist the competent authorities in conducting a comprehensive and legally sound investigation.
Should the competent authorities decide to initiate such an investigation, I am fully prepared to devote my complete professional attention and experience to this work, including intensive full-time participation, because I firmly believe that the lawful administration of public funds represents one of the highest responsibilities of every democratic state governed by the rule of law.
In my professional opinion, the proposed investigation should encompass the entire historical development of the relevant administrative, political, financial, and organisational structures from the moment of their establishment within Norway until the present day.
The principal object of the investigation should not be individual persons as such, but rather the legality of the institutional mechanisms governing public decision-making, the allocation and expenditure of budgetary resources, the operation of public oversight, and compliance with the constitutional principles of equality before the law, transparency, accountability, and responsible public administration.
To ensure that such an investigation achieves the highest possible level of effectiveness, it would, in my respectful opinion, be appropriate for the competent authorities to provide the opportunity for professional cooperation with the Norwegian Police Service, ØKOKRIM, and such other governmental institutions as may possess the necessary statutory authority to participate in the investigation.
Should such cooperation be approved, access to governmental archives, financial records, administrative files, institutional documentation, and other lawfully accessible sources of information should be granted exclusively in accordance with Norwegian law, under the supervision of the competent authorities, and with full respect for all legal requirements relating to confidentiality, official secrecy, procedural safeguards, and the protection of personal data.
Drawing upon my professional experience in the investigation of complex corruption cases, financial crimes, and institutional abuse of public authority, I am of the considered opinion that, provided the competent authorities extend full institutional cooperation and timely access to the necessary documentation, an investigation of this magnitude could reasonably be completed within an estimated period of six to eight months.
This time estimate represents my professional assessment based upon practical investigative experience rather than an unconditional guarantee of any particular outcome. The final conclusions of any investigation must always be determined exclusively by objectively established facts, admissible evidence, and the applicable law.
The ultimate objective of such an investigation should never be the confirmation of previously formulated assumptions.
Rather, its purpose should be the establishment of the objective truth, the strengthening of public confidence in the institutions of the Kingdom of Norway, the reinforcement of the rule of law, the enhancement of governmental transparency and accountability, and the effective protection of the legitimate interests of Norwegian taxpayers.
It is my sincere conviction that only an investigation conducted in accordance with the highest standards of legality, professional independence, procedural fairness, institutional impartiality, and constitutional accountability can command the confidence of Parliament, the competent public authorities, and Norwegian society as a whole.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit this proposal in the hope that it may contribute, however modestly, to the continued strengthening of democratic governance, institutional integrity, transparent public administration, and the enduring constitutional principle that every public institution and every holder of public office remains accountable under the law.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Mayer Meir Kaltenbrunner
Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence
Kingdom of Norway
© 2026
