Born Free, Shabana Rehman Nine Questions to IMDi Director Libe Rieber-Mohn

Over six pages, journalist Morten A. Strøksnes goes over everything he has found from the footage about what really happened behind the scenes when the Født Fri foundation and Shabana Rehman, so to speak, were turned into bullies by IMDi and the audit firm Ernst & Young.

You can read the article about the day and time in its entirety here: When the warning lights turn red

READ ALSO: Born Fri Case: They had decided in advance

One The moment in this case is how large sections of the press again jumped uncritically and posted undocumented allegations about a low shoe. But this time it is about the role of the Directorate of Integration and Diversity in what is now gradually emerging as a real scandal.

I have previously written two comments on the case. And after reading Strøksnes’s comprehensive review, I’m left with nine questions for director of integration and diversity Libe Rieber-Mohn.

READ HERE: A Necessary Defense for Shabana Rehman and Born Free

AND HERE: Now it’s IMDi and Ernst & Young who are left with the shame

So far he has been completely silent on the case, even though the case has been coming and going for almost six weeks. Therefore, the first question is:

1. Where are you, Libe Rieber-Mohn?

Every time Nettavisen or other outlets have tried to get your questions answered, they have told us that you cannot answer because you are in the middle of the case.

So I have to ask: What case processing? Didn’t the case end already the first weekend after receiving the Ernst & Young report?

Since then six weeks have passed. As you will see from my remaining questions, it has obviously worked faster before. Why is it taking so long now and where is it on the landscape?

2. How many hours did you actually spend depriving Born Free state aid?

You received the now uneven report from Ernst & Young on Friday afternoon, September 18. You must have skimmed it fast.

Already on the morning of Monday, September 21, the report was published on the government website, at the same time that the decision was made to deprive Født Fri of state support. This was received, the EY report processed, and a decision made over a weekend.

If the decision was not made earlier, then. The question then is, of course, whether the decision is valid, and Strøksnes notes that Født Fri has not yet seen a decision in writing. It must exist, and when can you show it, Libe Rieber-Mohn?

By the way, were the responsible minister, the minister of education, and the newly elected liberal leader Guri Melby conferred before the decision was made? If so, when?

3. Why was it so urgent?

He wrote to EY that “For IMDi, it is important that the task is completed before September 15.” Why was it so important? Was it because that day is an important deadline for submitting changes to the state budget?

In the Dag og Tid article, Strøksnes notes that several of the whistleblowers were in contact with the media from the beginning and had terrible things to say on Born Free. for contacted IMDi.

Only Our Country jumped on the many stories of undocumented immigrants. But that was enough. After that, the whistleblowers contacted IMDi and told it that a major scandal was taking place in the media.

Were you afraid of getting black money, Libe Rieber-Mohn? Was this one of the reasons you urgently ordered a rush report from a private company so that you could appear proactive, but then abdicate responsibility?

4. What did you do to ensure the quality of Ernst & Young’s report?

Although there was much talk at the first reading of the EY report, it wasn’t until the October 6 press conference that it was truly deprived of all honor.

Among other things, by research expert Anne Helsingeng, who noted that the report suffered from what is called “confirmation bias” – that its writers are really only seeking to confirm what they believe in advance.

It was also revealed here that EY had not interviewed the accountant or auditor, who had approved all the accounts. Helsingeng also noted that Født Fri had not yet been given access to the alerts, and was only now allowed to comment on the report.

I was surprised at the press conference by the solid documentation of the defense of Født Fris, which came out for the first time gives, and wrote the comment. Now it’s Ernst & Young and IMDi who are left with the shame.

Perhaps you were surprised too, Libe Rieber-Mohn. Maybe things came up that you weren’t aware of either? Did you then regret publishing the EY report so quickly, before Født Fri had to respond and eliminate the worst mistakes?

5. Why doesn’t Født Fri have access to the audio recordings of the interrogations?

The Ernst & Young investigation was led by a former police officer who had previously been criticized for murder, and is used as an example of how bad it can go when open-ended questions are not asked in interrogations.

The same man has also done a lot to correct his previous mistakes, but in one of the interrogations, in four hours, he is now again accused by Rehman and his accountant of asking leading questions. That “good police / bad police methods” were used. And that what the report says and what was said in the interrogations do not match.

For example, about the trip to London, about the concert with a-ha that was said to be free. And the supposed spa stay that was not a spa stay

READ MORE: Former Born Free investigator previously criticized for murder.

IMDi has ordered and paid for the EY report.

Therefore, it is probably you, Libe Rieber-Mohn, who is also the formal owner of the audio recordings that Født Fris’s lawyer has demanded to be handed over to him so that he can document what was said and not said during interrogations. .

Have you asked Ernst & Young to give you the recordings? If not, why not?

6. Have you verified the motives of the complainants?

In Dag og Tid it seems that the much discussed warnings, of which Født Fri finally received a condensed version, are full of errors.

Among other things, the complainants wrote that they were afraid of losing their jobs. But Strøksnes points out that none of them were employed. Some of them were seconded by NAV, others had short-term commitments (exactly the model the board had adopted), but wanted a permanent job or a higher salary.

Another claim was that when Born Free was eating at a restaurant, the wine Rehman was supposed to have “generally cost more than the food,” and Born Free paid for everything. This has been refuted by both the accountant and the auditor.

Did they take it for good fish? No alarm sounded? Not at Ernst & Young? Not with the IMDi social workers? And neither with you, Libe Rieber-Mohn?

Strøksnes mentions several similar errors. In addition, it indicates that several of the complainants visited the organization just a few weeks ago, several years ago. And that some of them today run “competing” organizations. One of them has even said in an interview with Vårt Land that if the five million Born Free now disappear from the state budget … well, then maybe others might be ready to take over:

“- I wish the foundation was ‘relaunched’ with professionals to realize what it is supposed to do.”

You don’t have to be very conspiratorial to wonder if anyone has a hidden agenda here. I’m not saying that all whistleblowers have had it, Strøksnes has not either. But that Some he may have had ulterior motives, it doesn’t seem very unlikely.

7. What serious errors have you actually found?

In hindsight, it turned out that the trip to London was paid for with a scholarship and that aha’s concert was also free. It has been discovered that the so-called spa stay was not a spa stay at all.

The Day and Time review also shows that Shabana’s older sister’s catering was an emergency solution, which was also cheaper than normal, up to 116 crowns per envelope. No unnecessary alcohol was served in the Born Free collections, just the usual glass of wine for food if served.

Strøksnes writes:

“I cannot deny that there are serious errors. But it is strange that no major errors have arisen, especially if the methods used are known. So it is natural to ask: Can from answer what you actually found in Born Free, Libe Rieber-Mohn?

But perhaps the most important:

8. Do you think this is adequate case processing?

In my comment a couple of weeks ago, I wrote that “IMDI Director Libe Rieber-Mohn may not be familiar with an impression left behind in which the processing of the case in one important direction appears to be lax and impulse-driven. or emotions “.

Previously here at Nettavisen we have referred to both Anne Helsingeng and Professor Petter Gottschalk about what, in their opinion, is the weakness of the EY report.

Dag og Tid has also spoken with Birthe M. Eriksen at ADI Advokater AS, who has a Ph.D. in notification, was a member of the Notification Committee and has special experience in private investigations.

Read more comments from Erik Stephansen

She believes that Born Free and Shabana Rehman have been victims of a “character murder” that has already caused significant financial losses. He is quoted as saying that the EY report lacks “any basis for confidence” and that the prosecution of the IMDi case must be brought before the Civil Ombudsman.

Furthermore, he believes that Shabana Rehman has a good basis to pursue lawsuits against Ernst & Young and the state.

9. Is this how we should feel?

Honestly: this is not how we can have it. We can’t have it so that foundations or organizations are subjected to arbitrary case processes and lose state support, so to speak, overnight, and then have to sue the state to defend themselves.

The journalist Morten A. Strøksnes, who is also behind books like A murder in the Congo Y Havboka (for the one who won the Brage award), the six-page article ends with him believing that the case will end in court.

I think so too, if the Integration and Diversity Department does not manage to get out of this mess in a more dignified way.

What do you say, Libe Rieber-Mohn?