Muqdisho (Caasimada Online) – A misleading headline about Somalia’s recent oil and gas agreement with Turkey has captured public attention. At the center of these claims is a little-known outlet called Nordic Monitor, which published the widely shared story alleging that “Turkey will take 90% of Somalia’s oil revenues.”

But before accepting these claims at face value, it is important to ask: Who is Nordic Monitor, and why are they getting Somalia’s story wrong?

What is Nordic Monitor — and what is their agenda?

Nordic Monitor is not an established international media outlet with a track record in African affairs. It is a small Sweden-based platform run by Abdullah Bozkurt, a former Turkish journalist with close ties to the Fethullah Gülen movement, which the Turkish government has designated a terrorist organization.

The outlet was founded not as an independent news organization but as part of a broader anti-Turkey propaganda effort following political disputes between Turkey and the Gülen movement.

In other words, Nordic Monitor’s reporting is not neutral journalism — it is part of a political fight that has nothing to do with Somalia’s national interest.

How Nordic Monitor got the Somalia-Turkey oil story wrong?

Nordic Monitor’s coverage of Somalia’s oil deal fails even the most basic tests of credible reporting. Here’s why:

• No Somali government sources were consulted, or given the chance for a comment. 
• No experts on oil contracts or production-sharing agreements were quoted.
• The report ignores global oil contract standards, such as cost recovery models that are used by dozens of developing countries worldwide.
• The key term “90%” was presented out of context, falsely suggesting a permanent revenue share — while the agreement clearly specifies that this is only for cost recovery, not ownership or profits.

This is either a case of deliberate distortion or a complete lack of understanding of how oil agreements work.

A pattern of politicized reporting

This is not the first time Nordic Monitor has pushed politically motivated narratives disguised as reporting. A quick review of their past publications shows a consistent focus on:

• Discrediting Turkey’s foreign policy, particularly its activities in Africa and the Middle East.
• Attacking Turkish-supported projects abroad, regardless of their content or merit.
• Promoting a one-sided view that aligns with the outlet’s founders’ political conflicts back home.

Regardless of the truth, Somalia’s oil deal became the latest vehicle for this agenda.

Why Somalia deserves better than imported propaganda?

Decisions about Somalia’s future, including its natural resource agreements, should be based on facts, transparency, and informed debate. They should not be shaped by foreign political rivalries or one-sided propaganda.

Misreporting on this scale does real damage:

• It misleads the Somali public.
• It risks undermining legitimate national efforts to develop Somalia’s energy sector.
• It reduces complex policy issues to sensational headlines that distract the real debate.

The Somali people deserve accurate information — not misinformation imported from foreign disputes.

The Bottom line: question the source, not just the story

Before sharing or believing explosive claims like “Turkey will take 90% of Somalia’s oil,” it is worth asking:

• Who is saying this?
• What is their track record on Somalia or African affairs?
• Are they quoting credible sources?
• Do they explain global industry standards like cost recovery and PSAs?
• Do they have a political agenda or interest?

The answers to these questions expose a clear agenda and a lack of journalistic integrity in the case of Nordic Monitor.

The future of Somalia’s resources deserves serious, fact-based reporting — not propaganda.

Read: Breaking down the Somalia-Türkiye oil deal: Facts vs. Lies