Somalia’s new e‑visa system ignites a storm over money, power and trust
The row over Somalia’s newly launched electronic visa system has moved beyond bureaucratic bickering into a full‑blown political and financial controversy, exposing fault lines in a country long divided over sovereignty, economic control and how the diaspora — Somalia’s lifeline — is treated.
- Advertisement -
Accusations, denials and a Facebook post that set it off
The controversy began in a blunt Facebook post by Axmed Ismaaciil, the general manager of WorldRemit’s Somalia operations, who said the e‑visa scheme was not the transparent public service it was billed to be but a private arrangement “controlled by Premier Bank in partnership with Empire,” a company he alleged is linked to the family of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Axmed wrote that visa fees were routed through Premier Bank and into Empire, raising what he described as “a serious conflict of interest.”
Axmed said he had personally contacted Premier Bank’s chairman, who he claimed confirmed the bank’s role in the system. He told readers he would fight the arrangement and would go to international media if the situation was not corrected. He also emphasized he was speaking for himself, not on behalf of WorldRemit.
Premier Bank North Western State of Somalia responded quickly, rejecting the assertions. The bank described itself as “fully registered” and operating under North Western State of Somalia financial laws, saying its Gateway Service supports digital payments in North Western State of Somalia and denying any link to an e‑visa platform or to individuals connected to the president’s family.
Why an e‑visa became a political flashpoint
At first glance, a digital visa portal looks like the sort of modernization many countries embrace to streamline travel and improve border security. But in a country where authority is fragmented — with Mogadishu’s federal government and Hargeisa’s self‑declared North Western State of Somalia vying over airspace, customs and recognition — the deployment of a single online system becomes much more than an administrative reform.
North Western State of Somalia has rejected the federal e‑visa, leaving some of its residents stranded in airports and turning routine trips into political statements. For many in the diaspora, who account for a substantial portion of foreign currency flowing into Somalia, the issue is immediate. Remittances and digital transfers are not abstract figures here but lifelines that pay for medicine, food, schools and small businesses across the country.
That reality makes allegations of private control over a government function particularly combustible. If true, the mixing of bank services, a visa platform and political connections would feed concerns about elite capture of state revenue streams, a complaint common across fragile states where weak institutions meet concentrated wealth.
What this says about governance, transparency and the digital age
The dispute exemplifies a broader global tension: governments and private providers increasingly rely on digital solutions for migration management and financial transactions, but these systems can centralize power in ways that escape public scrutiny. From e‑visa portals to biometric ID databases, the same technologies that promise efficiency also create single points of control that can be abused — intentionally or not.
For Somalia, whose post‑1991 landscape has been shaped by competing administrations, clan networks and significant foreign involvement, the stakes are steep. The allegations have tapped into long‑running anxieties about patronage and the entanglement of business and politics. They also raise practical questions about access: who can pay, which bank is accepted, and what happens when parts of the country reject the federal rule that underpins the system?
Voices from the ground and the diaspora
Travellers and business owners in Hargeisa and Mogadishu tell a similar story — that everyday life quickly becomes politicized when official processes change. For a small import‑export trader, a new visa requirement can mean lost sales; for a family in the UK trying to visit relatives in North Western State of Somalia, it can mean canceled flights and painful delays.
Axmed’s public warning — that he would take the matter to international media if the arrangements remained — highlights another dynamic: the Somali diaspora is an influential political actor. Remittance companies, fintech firms and community leaders based abroad can amplify complaints and shape narratives in ways that local actors cannot.
What comes next — and what it reveals
For now, both sides have dug in. The federal government has defended the e‑visa’s goal of strengthening border security across Somalia’s territory, including regions administered by North Western State of Somalia. Premier Bank has denied involvement in the visa platform as described by Axmed. The result is an impasse that will likely require third‑party transparency measures, either through independent audits, clearer public contracts, or a mediated dialogue between Mogadishu and Hargeisa.
Beyond the immediate problem, the episode forces uncomfortable questions about how digital infrastructure is governed in fragile states. Who decides which private firms receive government contracts? How are conflicts of interest identified and managed? And when a service affects people across disputed territories, how can it be designed to avoid exacerbating political disputes?
At its core, the e‑visa controversy is not just about a technology or a bank. It is about trust. In fragile political environments, trust is a scarce commodity: once lost, it is hard to rebuild. And when remittances and migration intersect with perceptions of unfair enrichment by elites, the consequences can be more than reputational — they can be economic and deeply political.
As Somalia and North Western State of Somalia navigate this moment, the world will be watching not only how they resolve a policy dispute but how they choose to safeguard the integrity of systems that increasingly mediate daily life. Will officials open contracts to scrutiny? Will fintech platforms adopt transparent settlement processes? Or will the debate harden into yet another chapter in a long struggle over who controls the levers of power in the Horn of Africa?
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
