On Monday 12 October, Mali’s Minister for Malians Abroad and African Integration, Mossa Ag Attaher, led an official ceremony to hand out funding to 90 socio-economic reintegration projects for returning migrants. The total envelope announced was 121 million CFA francs, averaging between 1 and 2 million per project. Out of 206 applications received, 90 were selected. The state is bankrolling the entire operation through the Special Investment Budget. The sectors highlighted are familiar ones: livestock, market gardening, agriculture, trade, crafts and services. The beneficiaries are spread across Bamako and a handful of other locations (Gao, Timbuktu, Nioro, Kita, San).
On paper, the announcement looks clean, national and sovereign. It fits neatly into the current rhetoric of celebrating the diaspora and turning return into an opportunity. The minister called for “rigour”, “exemplary management” and promised “territorial follow-up”. He even mentioned particular attention to deportees from Saudi Arabia, who often fall outside the IOM’s radar.
Yet behind the round figures and the giant cheque photos, several grey areas remain and invite scrutiny.
Selection process lacks transparency
No public criteria grid has been released. It is unclear on what basis the 90 files were chosen from 206. Who sat on the selection committee? What factors were prioritised: genuine 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 organisations in 2024) also did not result in 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. Nor have the exact amounts allocated to each, or the precise nature of the projects selected. In a country where confidence in the management of public funds remains fragile, this lack of transparency is problematic. How can anyone verify that the money actually reaches the intended recipients and does not dilute along the way? How can anyone ensure that relatives, activists or intermediaries are not capturing part of the envelope?
Follow-up promised, never demonstrated
The minister promises “territorial follow-up” to guarantee the sustainability of the activities. However, no public evaluation of previous rounds has been published. How many projects from 2024 and 2025 still exist today? How many actually generate a stable income and create jobs? How many have simply vanished after the grant ran out? Without performance indicators, independent audits and published 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 (financed 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 those 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 programme is financed from the Special Investment Budget. In a tight budgetary context, it is unclear exactly where the 121 million comes from, or whether it comes at the expense of other priorities. It is also unclear whether the beneficiaries are only recent returnees or include people who came back several years ago. Finally, there is no indication of how the scheme links (or does not link) with existing mechanisms run by the IOM and technical partners, which could lead to duplication or, conversely, gaps in coverage.
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, traceability and 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.
