A high-profile payout that leaves more questions than answers
On Monday, October 12, Mali’s Minister of Malians Abroad and African Integration, Mossa Ag Attaher, presided over a ceremony to hand out financing to 90 socio-economic reintegration projects for returning migrants. The total envelope announced: 121 million CFA francs, or roughly 1 to 2 million per project. Out of 206 applications received, 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, handicrafts, and services. Beneficiaries are spread across Bamako and a few localities, including Gao, Tombouctou, Nioro, Kita, and San.
On paper, the announcement looks clean, national, and sovereign. It fits the current rhetoric of celebrating the diaspora and turning return into opportunity. The minister called for “rigor,” “exemplary management,” and promised “territorial follow-up.” He even mentioned special attention to deportees from Saudi Arabia, who often fall off the radar of the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Yet behind the round figures and the giant check photos, several gray areas remain and give plenty of reason to ask hard questions.
An opaque selection process fuels public skepticism
No public grid of criteria has been released. It is unclear on what basis the 90 files were chosen out of 206. Who sat on the selection committee? What factors were prioritized: real economic viability, level of vulnerability, how long ago the return happened, the presence of a serious business plan, or other, less avowable considerations? Previous rounds (75 projects for 100 million in 2025, 40 projects run by civil society organizations in 2024) also did not lead to the publication of detailed criteria. The opacity of the process leaves open the question of possible favoritism, clientelism, or selection by network rather than by merit and potential impact.
No names, no details: the transparency gap widens
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 anyone verify that the funds actually reach the intended recipients and do not dilute along the way? How can anyone ensure that relatives, activists, or intermediaries do not capture part of the envelope?
Promised follow-up that has never been demonstrated
The minister promises “territorial follow-up” to guarantee the sustainability of the activities. However, no public evaluation has been published on previous rounds. How many projects from 2024 and 2025 still exist today? How many actually generate a stable income and create jobs? How many simply disappeared after the grant ran out? Without performance indicators, independent audits, and disclosure of results, the scheme looks more like a series of one-off operations than an evaluable public policy.
The scale of the problem: a drop in the ocean
Since 2022, the MPRR-SSA program alone (funded mainly 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 while the vast majority of returning migrants remain without structured support.
What is not being said
The program is funded from the Special Investment Budget. In a tight budgetary context, it is unclear exactly where these 121 million came from, or whether they come at the expense of other priorities. It is also unclear whether beneficiaries are only recent returnees or include people who came back years ago. Finally, nothing indicates how the scheme articulates (or not) with existing mechanisms of the IOM and technical partners, which can lead to duplication or, conversely, gaps in coverage.
Reactions and the road ahead: a legitimate intention, a policy still unproven
The stated intention—helping compatriots rebuild an economic activity after an often traumatic migration 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.
