A question of substance behind the ceremony
Can a single cheque handover ceremony truly signal a lasting solution for Mali’s returning migrants? On Monday, October 12, the Minister of Malians Abroad and African Integration, Mossa Ag Attaher, presided over the award of financing to 90 socio-economic reintegration projects for returnees. The total envelope announced was 121 million CFA francs, averaging between 1 and 2 million per project. Out of 206 applications, 90 were selected. The state is fully funding the operation through the Special Investment Budget. The sectors highlighted are familiar: livestock, market gardening, agriculture, trade, crafts and services. Beneficiaries are spread across Bamako and a few localities (Gao, Timbuktu, Nioro, Kita, San).
On paper, the announcement looks clean, national and sovereign. It fits the current rhetoric of valuing the diaspora and turning return into an opportunity. The minister called for “rigour” and “exemplary management” and promised “territorial follow-up”. He even mentioned special attention to deportees from Saudi Arabia, often off the radar of the IOM.
Yet behind the round figures and giant cheque photos, several grey areas persist
An opaque selection process
No public criteria grid has been published. We do not know on what basis the 90 files were chosen out of 206. Who sat on the selection committee? What elements were prioritised: real economic viability, level of vulnerability, how long ago the return took place, the presence of a serious business plan, or other less avowable considerations? Previous editions (75 projects for 100 million in 2025, 40 projects run by CSOs in 2024) also did not lead to the publication of detailed criteria. The opacity of the process leaves open the question of possible favouritism, clientelism or selection by network rather than by merit and potential impact.
No names, no details
The list of the 90 beneficiaries has not been made public. Neither the exact amounts allocated to each, nor the precise nature of the selected projects. In a country where trust in the management of public funds remains fragile, this lack of transparency is problematic. How can we verify that the funds actually reach the intended recipients and do not dilute along the way? How can we ensure that relatives, activists or intermediaries do not capture part of the envelope?
A promised follow-up that has never been demonstrated
The minister promises “territorial follow-up” to guarantee the sustainability of the activities. Yet no public evaluation has been published on previous editions. How many projects from 2024 and 2025 still exist today? How many actually generate a stable income and create jobs? How many have simply disappeared after the subsidy ran out? Without performance indicators, without independent audits and without communication of results, the scheme looks more like a series of one-off operations than an evaluable public policy.
The scale of the problem
Since 2022, the MPRR-SSA programme alone (mainly funded by the European Union and implemented with the IOM) has facilitated the return of more than 27,800 Malians and supported over 14,000 reintegration projects. Against these volumes, 90 projects for 121 million CFA francs look like a drop in the ocean. The national effort is real, but it remains symbolic. And that is precisely where the risk of a gap between communication and reality is greatest: presenting a limited operation as a “concrete commitment” and a “lever for local development” can create an illusion of massive action when the vast majority of returning migrants remain without structured support.
What is not being said
The programme is financed from the Special Investment Budget. In a tight budgetary context, we do not know exactly where these 121 million come from, nor whether they come at the expense of other priorities. We also do not know if the beneficiaries are only recent returnees or if they include people who came back several years ago. Finally, nothing indicates how the scheme links (or not) with existing mechanisms of the IOM and technical partners, which can lead to duplication or, conversely, gaps in coverage.
The intention is legitimate, but the test is transparency
The stated intention – helping compatriots rebuild an economic activity after an often traumatic migratory journey – is legitimate. But a public policy worthy of the name is judged by its transparency, its traceability and its measurable results. For now, the scheme remains largely a black box: applications received, projects selected, funds disbursed… and silence on what happens next.
As long as the list of beneficiaries, the selection criteria and the impact assessments of previous years are not made public, doubt will remain permissible. And in an area as sensitive as the reintegration of returning migrants, doubt is never neutral.