F-35 price row puts Swiss defence procurement under scrutiny

Switzerland’s CHF 6 billion fighter jet pledge rests on an agreement that parliament says was never secured. The finding has reopened scrutiny of the country’s largest recent defence procurement, a contract for 36 US made F-35A aircraft.

The House of Representatives’ Committee on the Examination of Public Accounts, known as GPK-N, said in a report published on September 8 that no flat rate fixed price had been agreed with Washington. The defence ministry had repeatedly assured the public that the aircraft would be delivered for CHF 6 billion.

The disclosure has drawn criticism across the political spectrum. Green lawmaker Clarence Chollet told Keystone-SDA that the effect on Switzerland’s image was “catastrophic”. The centre right parties that hold a majority in parliament have rejected immediate enthusiasm for a parliamentary committee of inquiry. The Greens are calling for one.

The dispute comes as Switzerland continues to prepare for the F-35 programme and faces questions about additional costs. For the public, the issue reaches beyond the aircraft themselves: parliament is examining how the government described a major financial commitment and how much scrutiny lawmakers received during the negotiations.

The central procurement failure identified by parliament is administrative: Switzerland publicly relied on a fixed price that its oversight committee says did not exist in the required form. That finding places the defence ministry’s communications and contract management under pressure.

The GPK-N report examined the process behind the purchase of the new fighter aircraft. Its conclusion cuts into a repeated assurance from the ministry that all 36 F-35A jets would be delivered for CHF 6 billion. Earlier reporting had already highlighted US demands for hundreds of millions of francs more, keeping the cost dispute alive in Swiss politics.

The report does not establish that officials committed a crime. It does, however, raise practical questions about who negotiated the terms, who verified them and how the information reached parliament and the public. The Swiss People’s Party leader Thomas Aeschi asked who was responsible for the dossier and whether the law firm involved was supervised or acted independently.

The Radical Liberal Party has called for trust between the government and parliament to be restored. That will depend on access to clear records, contractual documents and a precise account of the decisions taken during the procurement process.

Political accountability has stalled as the centre right majority resists a parliamentary committee of inquiry. The Greens argue that the scale of the controversy warrants the strongest investigative instrument available to parliament.

A committee of inquiry could examine the procurement timeline, the role of the defence ministry, legal advisers and the communication of the CHF 6 billion figure. It could also establish whether parliament received complete and accurate information when it considered the fighter purchase.

The Greens have said that the affair cannot be assigned to one person. That position matters because former Defence Minister Viola Amherd oversaw the purchase while serving on the Federal Council. Amherd, who is from Valais and belongs to the Centre Party, told Keystone-SDA that she had already commented on the matter and would make no further statement on the report’s allegations.

The Centre Party and other centre right forces have not indicated support for a parliamentary inquiry. With no immediate institutional change expected, the GPK-N report remains the main public account of the procurement problems. The dispute is therefore moving through political pressure, committee oversight and demands for documentation rather than a formal inquiry.

The legal path to personal liability appears narrow. Andreas Stöckli, professor of constitutional and administrative law at the University of Fribourg, said it would be difficult to assess whether federal administration staff face legal risk on the information currently available.

Swiss officials would face financial liability only under stringent conditions, he said. Investigators would need to prove unlawful conduct and show that it was committed intentionally or through gross negligence. Separate proceedings would then be required. Stöckli added that the law firms involved in the F-35 process should not face proceedings for the same reasons unless the necessary legal threshold could be met.

Former minister Viola Amherd also benefits from important constitutional protections. Vincent Martenet, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Lausanne, said Federal Council members enjoy absolute immunity for statements made before parliament.

Those rules do not settle the political dispute. They define the difference between a procurement process that may have suffered administrative failings and conduct that could lead to legal penalties. The parliamentary report, as presented by Swissinfo, identifies serious questions about oversight and information. It does not by itself establish intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence or a basis for prosecution.

The immediate consequence is political pressure, while the fighter programme remains in place. No change to the procurement is expected now, and the parliamentary report has not produced an announced cancellation, renegotiation or criminal case.

That leaves Switzerland facing a difficult credibility test. The government must explain how the CHF 6 billion figure was presented, what contractual protections actually exist and how any additional costs will be handled. Parliament must decide whether committee hearings and existing oversight are sufficient or whether the Greens are right to seek a full committee of inquiry.

The controversy also carries a regional and national dimension. The procurement was overseen by Viola Amherd, a former defence minister from Valais, while the aircraft are intended to form part of Switzerland’s future air defence. Taxpayers across the country are being asked to follow a dispute involving US pricing, Swiss administration and parliamentary control.

For now, the next steps are documentary. Lawmakers will press for explanations from the defence ministry and those involved in the negotiations. Amherd has declined to comment further. The credibility of the purchase will depend on whether the government can provide a complete account of the price commitment and the decisions behind it.