Somalia’s opposition takes the fight to the courts — and the country risks paying the price
Somalia’s fragile political equilibrium rattled further this week when a coalition of opposition figures lodged a formal legal complaint accusing President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and senior officials of corruption, human-rights violations and unconstitutional power grabs. What began as a paper filing in Mogadishu is best read not merely as another courtroom drama, but as a symptom of a deeper crisis in a state still stitching itself together after decades of war.
- Advertisement -
What the complaint says — and why it matters
The Forum for National Salvation, a coalition that includes several high-profile politicians and former leaders, accuses the administration of unlawfully amending key elements of the 2012 Federal Constitution, postponing regional ballots and presiding over questionable sales of public land that have displaced families. “The country is now facing a serious political and constitutional crisis that threatens both state-building and national security,” the forum said in a statement this week.
At first glance the allegations read like familiar fare in many fragile states: disputed constitutional changes, land grabs, and prolonged electoral delays. But in Somalia those grievances are amplified by the country’s delicate clan balance, the persistent threat of al-Shabaab, and the dependence of federal institutions on international support. A legal challenge in such an environment is not only a contest over statutes; it is a contest over legitimacy and the very idea of who represents Somalia.
From an altercation at a police station to a broader impasse
The complaint arrived a day after a violent confrontation outside Warta Nabadda District Police Station in Mogadishu. Federal authorities accused opposition activists of attempting to storm the facility; the opposition has not directly acknowledged the charge. Whether planned or spontaneous, such scenes are combustible in a city where memories of urban fighting are still fresh.
“People are exhausted,” said a Mogadishu resident who asked not to be named for safety reasons. “We fear both chaos and a slow erosion of rights. Neither is acceptable.”
Beyond the headlines: why this dispute could reverberate
There are several reasons to pay close attention. First, the timing: Somalia has repeatedly struggled to hold timely regional and national elections. Each delay erodes public faith in the political process and gives extra room for extra-constitutional solutions. Second, the security dimension: al-Shabaab has survived for years by exploiting local grievances and weak governance. A high-profile dispute between political elites can divert attention and resources away from counter-insurgency efforts, even as the group seeks to exploit fissures.
Third, land and displacement are visceral issues. When urban or agricultural land is sold — often to private firms or well-connected individuals — ordinary families can find themselves uprooted, sometimes with little or no recourse. That fuels anger in the capital’s neighborhoods and the countryside, and it sharpens the perception that governance serves elites more than citizens.
Finally, there is the question of institutions. Somalia’s judiciary and parliament are not yet robustly independent. Turning to the courts to settle what is also a political dispute tests both judicial independence and the wider balance of power. If judges are seen as politically captured, litigation becomes theatre rather than remedy.
How this fits global patterns
Somalia’s confrontation fits a broader pattern across fragile and emerging democracies where political actors increasingly “juridify” disputes — seeking legal validation for claims that are fundamentally political. Around the world, courts have become arenas where contested power is fought over, from Latin America to Eastern Europe to parts of Africa. The risk is that legal processes, intended to resolve disagreements, are instead used to delegitimise opponents and harden divisions.
There is also a diaspora dimension. Somalis abroad — in Europe, North America and the Gulf — send money, influence debates and organise protests. Their voices matter inside the country, and international reactions can shape elite calculations. Western governments and multilateral bodies face a dilemma: press too hard for stability and risk being seen as propping up an unpopular regime; stay aloof and watch the rule of law fray.
Paths forward and hard choices
There are no easy solutions. For now, the immediate choices lie with Somalia’s political class and with mediators who might step in.
- Political leaders could seek an immediate, mediated dialogue focused on a clear timeline for elections and protections for displaced families. Confidence-building measures — an independent panel on land transactions, for example — could defuse tensions.
- The judiciary could signal impartiality by fast-tracking the complaint through transparent hearings. That risks inflaming passions if the outcome is disputed, but it also offers a non-violent route for accountability.
- International partners can nudge rather than dictate: offer logistical support for elections, help underwrite a neutral audit of land sales, and coordinate behind-the-scenes diplomacy to prevent escalation.
But each of these carries trade-offs. Pushing for elections without addressing underlying grievances may produce a hollow vote. Heavy-handed international pressure could provoke nationalist backlash and reinforce the opposition’s claims of external interference.
Questions for Somalis — and for the international community
As the legal contest unfolds, Somalis and their partners must confront tough questions. Can institutions be strengthened without toppling the fragile political balance? How can land rights be protected in a country where documentation is often weak and clan authority still matters? And perhaps most urgently: how to prevent a political row from becoming a security crisis that benefits the very extremists everyone claims to oppose?
For citizens watching the court filings and street scenes, the ordeal is both immediate and existential. “We want accountability,” said a teacher in Hodan district. “But we also want our children to be safe.”
That dual desire — for justice and stability — is familiar across fragile states. It is the task of leaders, civil society and the international community to find a balance before the courtroom battle turns into something far more costly.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
