Vigdis Bollerud, a police officer in the South-East Police District, plays the main role in one of the most controversial and ongoing whistleblower cases in Norwegian policing.
This article was first published in Monsens Revelje and is republished with permission.
Her story began with personal conflicts related to her former partner and ex-policeman, Svein Hagen. The case has since developed into highlighting major weaknesses in the police’s internal systems for handling reports/complaints, conflicts of interest (impartiality), and justice. Bollerud’s fight has generated national attention and triggered demands for a more comprehensive investigation than has been carried out so far.
You can support Vigdis» fight on Spleis here: [The Police Whistleblower vs. the State]
The case began in 2017, when Bollerud uncovered what she believed were serious financial irregularities in the accounts of her former cohabitant, Svein Hagen, known from the podcast Avhørt as «The King of Kongsberg.» Hagen, who left his leadership role in the police in the mid-2000s to enter private business, established a number of companies, including Sølvberget Sikkerhet AS. This security company, specializing in security services, had several active police officers among its employees.
- Read also: Sheriff exploited a woman 25 years his junior – now he is convicted
- Read also: Section Manager in the Norwegian Public Roads Administration convicted of imprisonment for fabricating expert reports
Specifically, it was in August 2017 that Bollerud filed her first report/complaint with the South-East Police District. Over the next few years, she and 15 other aggrieved parties submitted a total of 23 reports/complaints to the same police district against Hagen, his companies, and others involved, such as Veiding, Hagen’s lawyer.
However, all the reports were dismissed (henlagt), often on the same day they were delivered and without investigation. Additionally, several reports, including two from a state-authorized auditor (chartered accountant), were not even registered. The complainants were even incorrectly listed with the status of «informant» or «witness.» The most obvious reason for this appears to be that the complainants thus also did not receive any notification of the consistent dismissals.
These circumstances give reason to believe that Bollerud may have been subjected to targeted and systematic undermining in her attempts to bring serious matters to light. And that the opposition stems from high and powerful circles within both the police and the prosecuting authorities.
Documentation and Impartiality
Bollerud has shared documentation showing that several of those involved may also have close ties to lodge networks. This, if true, raises serious questions about impartiality and cronyism. Not least because a similar problem was uncovered in the case surrounding Hans Sverre Sjøvold, the former powerful head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) and Chief of Police in Oslo.
Sjøvold was, among other things, linked to illegal weapons handling and a resulting whistleblower being pressured out of their position. When Sjøvold was still Chief of Police, he received two weapons from the widow of a lodge friend. In his capacity as chief, he contributed to an attempt to get the head of the police’s arms office to receive and dispose of the weapons «under the table.» This included an unregistered revolver that did not originate from the widow of the lodge friend, but whose origin and circumstances were nonetheless not investigated. The whistleblower who reported the matter was later pressured into disability retirement for not complying.
Sjøvold has subsequently claimed that he did not know what the whistleblower was subjected to. However, this is difficult to believe, given the documentation and all of VG’s revelations about stated falsehoods from this man. According to the whistleblower, the former PST chief has also never contacted him to apologize.
As one of several circumstances, the Sjøvold case clearly demonstrated the existence of a negative culture where closed networks and a lack of objectivity dominated decision-making processes right up to the Minister of Justice.
Lack of Investigation
Despite the fact that Bollerud’s reports were dismissed without investigation, pressure from her and her supporters led the Oslo Public Prosecution Office to order an investigation in 2023 into two cases related to Svein Hagen’s economic activity. The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet), which became involved on Bollerud’s initiative, uncovered gross violations of the Accounting Act. Afterwards, the law firm Elden stated: «The Financial Supervisory Authority, NHO [Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise], and the Tax Administration have carried out independent investigations into the case. The Financial Supervisory Authority has concluded with a number of gross violations. This applies, among others, to the auditor and the accountant in the group. It is incomprehensible that the South-East Police District has not investigated these matters.»
Attempts to Discredit the Whistleblower
While the reports against Hagen were dismissed primarily due to lack of resources, significant resources were nevertheless used to investigate Bollerud herself. One example is a case where Hagen, based on the police management’s recommendation, reported an alleged theft of a letter from one of his company’s mailboxes. Bollerud responds that the claim of theft is incorrect and untrue: “The letter was sent from my employer to my private mailbox. The content was the police’s first genuine control report. This uncovered all the matters that had been reported and more.”
Despite the fact that the «theft» is at best insignificant compared to all the serious and dismissed accusations against Hagen, the mailbox case had not been dismissed until recently. Bollerud has no doubt that the police’s motives for their handling were to discredit her as a whistleblower: “and hide reports that reveal what they are doing.”
The circumstances undoubtedly raise questions about the police’s priorities and seemingly obvious underlying considerations. Another case that strengthens such thoughts was Bollerud’s activity on social media. A «like» she gave to a Facebook comment suggesting that Hagen should be «beaten up or put in a cage» was interpreted by the police management as an incitement to violence. Bollerud explained that she «liked» the comment because of the author’s engagement with the case, but that she quickly realized it could be misinterpreted. The post was also quite quickly removed by the author. Despite this, the incident was used as the basis for her dismissal from employment.
Chief of Police Ole B. Sæverud otherwise based the dismissal on Bollerud’s activities on social media over the past 6 months. Nevertheless, incidents that were far outside this time frame were used as justification. This was particularly true of the «like,» which actually took place 11 months earlier, but was presented by the police management as being within the 6-month period. The motive could hardly have been other than to strengthen the grounds for dismissal. This is further made clear by the fact that the incident was placed first in the grounds for dismissal and was strikingly put forward just as much by all later employer bodies that were to assess the reasonableness of the dismissal.
The many documented circumstances completely undermine the credibility behind the argument for dismissal. The behavior weakens the suspicion that a department management intends to eliminate a whistleblower.
Legal and Ethical Perspectives
The law firm Elden also criticized the dismissal, pointing out that it violates Section 100 of the Constitution on freedom of expression and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Elden has drawn parallels to other police cases where whistleblowers have been subjected to illegal retaliation, such as Alexander Karlsen, a civilian employee of the police who was also dismissed after his expressions on social media. The police were later criticized by the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Sivilombudet) for their handling of Karlsen.
The Way Forward
The whistleblower Vigdis Bollerud has an unusual amount of documentation to support her claims. This includes accounting reports, audio recordings, correspondence with the police, and statements from lawyers and experts. Perhaps this is precisely why she faces such massive resistance from powerful forces in the justice sector. This case also illustrates the need for a comprehensive investigation into the police’s handling of whistleblowing and internal processes.
Bollerud’s case, the Sjøvold case, the Tenold case, the Monica case, the Karlsen case, and many more recent cases, are all strong reminders of the urgent need for greater openness, impartiality, and justice within the police and elsewhere in the country’s justice sector. The final word in Bollerud’s fight for justice has not been spoken, not even here at Monsens Revelje, which will follow up on the case next week.