Jubbaland accuses federal government of abandoning key priorities, backs opposition alliance

Analysis: Jubbaland’s Broadside Against Mogadishu Exposes Somalia’s Uneasy Balancing Act

Somalia’s fragile political compact wobbled again this week as the Jubbaland regional administration publicly accused the federal government in Mogadishu of drifting from core national priorities, including the campaign against al-Shabaab and the country’s hard-won political unity. In a blunt statement issued Monday, Jubbaland warned that “short-term political interests” were eroding trust and urged a return to consensus politics. “The salvation of this country lies in national unity and leadership that takes responsibility for Somalia’s future,” the statement read.

The declaration did more than criticize. It aligned the southern state with a newly energized opposition umbrella, the Somali Salvation Forum, led by former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, which wrapped up a two-day meeting in the capital on Sunday. The Forum has accused President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration of sidelining the war effort while pursuing controversial land deals and fast-tracking constitutional changes that opponents call “illegal.” It urged a reset: inclusive talks, accelerated local elections, and a reversal of amendments to Somalia’s 2012 provisional constitution.

Why this matters now

Somalia is trying to do three hard things at once: conclude a long transition to direct elections, absorb fresh security responsibilities as African Union forces draw down, and stitch together a federal system sturdy enough to outlast political personalities. None of that works without federal–member state cooperation.

For years, Somalia’s security strategy leaned on a divide-and-conquer approach to al-Shabaab’s rural strongholds, where community militias and federal units, supported by the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), pushed the extremists from parts of central regions. But insurgents remained adaptive, striking back with assassinations, roadside bombs, and urban attacks, especially in Mogadishu and regional hubs. As ATMIS phases out, the stakes rise: any political rift that distracts from the security file risks giving al-Shabaab breathing room.

The constitutional fault line

At the heart of this week’s dispute is the unfinished business of Somalia’s basic law. The federal government says constitutional revisions are intended to clarify the system, centralize security coordination, and pave the way for long-promised one-person, one-vote elections. Critics—who include some regional leaders and a chorus of opposition figures—counter that the process has been rushed and selective, leaving key stakeholders behind.

The Salvation Forum’s warning about “conflicting legal frameworks” is not hyperbole in a country where overlapping authorities can mean dueling courts, parallel security chains, and mixed messages to international partners. Somalia has seen versions of this movie before: constitutional ambiguity becomes a political weapon, and political disputes bleed into security cooperation on the ground.

Jubbaland throws its weight behind the opposition

Jubbaland’s endorsement of the Somali Salvation Forum is significant. The Kismayo-based administration occupies a strategic corner of Somalia’s south, bordering Kenya and fronting the Indian Ocean—a region where al-Shabaab has contested territory and trade routes for years. When a regional state like Jubbaland signals it may not move in lockstep with Mogadishu, it complicates intelligence sharing, joint operations, and control of key ports and roads.

For many Somalis, this political moment brings a sense of déjà vu. Periodic spats between Villa Somalia and member states—over revenue, security mandates, or the mechanics of elections—have been recurring plot lines since the federal system took shape. Each flare-up tests whether Somalia has, as elders often say, learned to “bind the mat” firmly enough that it doesn’t fray with every change of seasons.

What the opposition is asking for

• Reverse recent amendments to the provisional constitution and recommit to a consensual process.
• Prioritize the war against al-Shabaab, including better support for frontline forces.
• Reach an inclusive political settlement with regional states and opposition figures.
• Fast-track credible local elections as a step toward full national polls.

On the land sales controversy—an issue that can quickly inflame Somali politics where memories of state asset disposals run deep—the Forum says the administration is prioritizing deals over security. The government has in the past argued that reforms and public asset management are part of cleaning up governance and expanding the tax base. The two narratives need not be mutually exclusive, but the timing, amid a grinding insurgency, is doing the federal side few favors in the court of public opinion.

Security: the immutable backdrop

Even as politics churn, al-Shabaab remains a daily threat. Analysts note that while territorial control has shifted in parts of central Somalia, the group’s capacity for asymmetric attacks endures. Civilian casualties, extortion in markets, and targeted killings of local administrators continue to sap confidence. As African Union forces scale back and Somali units step forward, unity of command—and of political purpose—matters more than ever.

Consider a local official in a district newly wrested from al-Shabaab. If he does not know whether a request for reinforcements goes through the federal chain or a regional commander, or whether salaries and supplies will flow this month, he is working on borrowed time. These are not abstract governance questions; they are survival questions.

Global currents, local consequences

Somalia’s contest over rules and representation echoes debates across the Horn of Africa and beyond: who owns natural resources, who controls land, how to conduct credible elections in fragile states, and how to rewrite constitutions without breaking the social contract. International partners—from the African Union and the United Nations to Gulf and Western donors—are watching for signals that Somalia can keep reforms on track without blowing past its own political guardrails.

Remittances from the Somali diaspora, estimated at more than a billion dollars annually, continue to pad household budgets and keep markets humming. But the diaspora cannot fix a constitutional process, and donors cannot bankroll unity. That work belongs to Somali political leaders, civil society, and the public, who have repeatedly shown a knack for compromise when stakes are clear and channels of dialogue are open.

What to watch

First, whether Villa Somalia responds directly to Jubbaland’s statement or seeks a quieter bridge-building path. Second, if the Somali Salvation Forum remains a talking shop or evolves into an organized political force with a plan for electoral participation. Third, whether regional leaders use the moment to press for a fresh national dialogue or dig in for a prolonged standoff.

In the Somali idiom, “a rope of many strands is hard to break.” The strands—security, constitutional legitimacy, local elections, and respect between Mogadishu and the member states—will need to hold together in the months ahead. The question is whether leaders will tighten the weave or pull at the threads.

Somalia has no shortage of plans. What it needs, once again, is consent around the basics: who decides, how decisions are made, and how to keep the guns pointed at the insurgents rather than at each other’s political ambitions. If this week’s warning from Jubbaland prompts a candid reckoning rather than a fresh feud, it may yet serve a constructive purpose.

By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.