Kismayo, Somalia — The Jubbaland regional administration on Saturday accused Somalia’s federal government of unconstitutional interference in the affairs of federal member states, warning that the moves threaten the country’s federal system and national unity as Parliament debates sweeping constitutional changes.
In a statement issued by the Jubbaland presidency, the regional authority said Mogadishu lacks the mandate to unilaterally amend the Provisional Constitution or restructure the system of governance. Somalia’s statehood, the statement argued, rests on consensus among its political stakeholders rather than the will of any single institution.
- Advertisement -
“The federal system is based on agreement and shared decision-making,” the statement said, adding that no institution has the power to determine the fate of the federal arrangement on its own.
Jubbaland accused the federal government of undermining foundational agreements that define the Federal Republic of Somalia, alleging an effort to weaken regional administrations through political steps it described as illegal. The administration warned that such actions risk deepening divisions and destabilizing the country at a sensitive moment.
The presidency said Jubbaland remains committed to defending Somalia’s unity, protecting the Constitution and safeguarding the constitutional rights of federal member states. It urged citizens to remain vigilant against measures that could fuel division or political chaos and called for disputes to be resolved through dialogue, mutual respect and adherence to the agreed constitutional framework. The statement firmly rejected any unilateral actions it said would erode the federal system.
The accusations came as Somalia’s two-house Parliament convened Saturday to review proposed amendments to the Provisional Constitution that go to the heart of federalism and power-sharing. During a joint session, lawmakers examined Chapter Four of the draft revisions and debated changes to Articles 49, 50 and 54 — provisions that define the structure of the federal system, the relationship between the federal government and member states, and the division of powers.
The constitutional review has exposed sharp rifts between the federal government and several regional states, with critics warning that the proposals could shift the balance of authority within Somalia’s fragile federal arrangement. Supporters of a stronger center have long argued for clearer lines of responsibility to overcome institutional paralysis, while regional leaders insist that any recalibration must be negotiated and codified through consensus to avoid unraveling hard-won accords.
Jubbaland’s intervention underscores how intensely the debate over constitutional change has become bound up with questions of legitimacy and process. The administration framed the issue as one of constitutional order — insisting that the text can only be amended through procedures and agreements recognized by all stakeholders — rather than a dispute over specific articles alone.
While the parliamentary review proceeded with a focus on federal-state relations and competencies, the public dispute highlights the political stakes for Somalia’s governance model. Regional administrations see constitutional guarantees as the backbone of federalism and a bulwark against overreach, while the central authorities face pressure to deliver coherent national policy amid persistent security and fiscal challenges.
The path forward is likely to hinge on whether the constitutional process can accommodate the concerns of federal member states without stalling overdue legal and institutional reforms. Jubbaland’s statement called for recommitting to dialogue-driven decision-making, signaling that buy-in from regional leaders will be critical to any durable outcome on constitutional amendments.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
