On Monday, October 12, Mali’s Minister of Malians Abroad and African Integration, Mossa Ag Attaher, presided over a ceremony to award funding to 90 socio-economic reintegration projects for returning migrants. The total envelope announced was 121 million CFA francs, which works out to an average of 1 to 2 million per project. Out of 206 applications received, 90 were selected. The state is fully financing the operation through the Special Investment Budget. The sectors supported are familiar ones: livestock, market gardening, agriculture, trade, handicrafts, and services. The beneficiaries are spread across Bamako and a handful of localities including Gao, Timbuktu, Nioro, Kita, and San.
Behind the ceremony: what the numbers don’t reveal
On paper, the announcement looks clean, national, and sovereign. It fits neatly into the current rhetoric of celebrating the diaspora and turning return into opportunity. The minister called for “rigor” and “exemplary management” and promised “territorial follow-up.” He even mentioned special attention to deportees from Saudi Arabia, who often fall outside the radar of the International Organization for Migration.
Yet behind the round figures and the oversized check photos, several gray areas remain and invite scrutiny.
The selection process: a black box
No public criteria grid has been released. It is unclear on what basis the 90 files were chosen from the 206 received. Who sat on the selection committee? What factors were prioritized: genuine economic viability, level of vulnerability, how long ago the return happened, the presence of a serious business plan, or other less openly acknowledged considerations? Previous rounds—75 projects for 100 million in 2025 and 40 projects run by civil society organizations in 2024—also never led to published detailed criteria. The opacity of the process leaves open the question of possible favoritism, clientelism, or selection through networks rather than 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 person nor the precise nature of the selected projects is available. 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 get diluted along the way? How can anyone ensure that relatives, political supporters, or intermediaries are not capturing 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 of earlier rounds has been released. How many projects from 2024 and 2025 are still operating today? How many actually generate stable income and create jobs? How many have simply vanished after the grant ran out? Without performance indicators, independent audits, or published results, the mechanism looks more like a series of one-off operations than an evaluable public policy.
The scale of the problem
Since 2022, the MPRR-SSA program alone—financed mainly by the European Union and implemented with the International Organization for Migration—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 program is financed through 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 whether they include people who came back several years ago. Finally, nothing indicates how the mechanism connects—or fails to connect—with existing programs run by the International Organization for Migration and technical partners, which could lead to duplication or, conversely, gaps in coverage.
Why this matters beyond the headlines
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 mechanism remains largely a black box: applications received, projects selected, funds disbursed… and silence about what happens next.
As long as the beneficiary list, the selection criteria, and the impact assessments from previous years are not made public, doubt will remain justified. And in an area as sensitive as the reintegration of returning migrants, doubt is never neutral.