Somalia’s president denies plot to cling to power as debate over constitution deepens
When President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud sat down with the BBC Somali Service this week, his tone was both defensive and conciliatory. He rejected accusations from opposition figures that he is manoeuvring to prolong his hold on office, insisting that only the country’s independent electoral commission — not politicians — can set election timetables. “No individual politician has veto power,” he said, adding that if the commission needs more time it alone can request it.
- Advertisement -
The exchange is the latest act in a long-running drama over Somalia’s fragile politics: a contentious effort to move from a provisional constitution — adopted in the wake of decades of conflict — towards a permanent charter and, eventually, direct universal suffrage. For many Somalis the stakes could not be higher. For the president and his allies, the revisions are a fulfilment of promises made years ago; for sceptics and rival regional leaders, they are a cover for power-grabbing.
How a constitutional process became a political flashpoint
Somalia’s current constitution has been treated as provisional since it was approved in 2012. It was always intended as a stepping stone — a framework to stabilise governance after two decades of upheaval and to pave the way for one-person-one-vote elections. Progress has been slow and uneven.
Mohamud argues he is simply obeying the spirit of that commitment. “We are moving forward with what they themselves once promised,” he told the BBC, pointing to past pledges by some of his critics to complete the constitution and introduce universal suffrage. Yet those same critics — including lawmakers from Puntland State and Jubaland, two powerful federal member states — have publicly opposed the current package of changes.
At the centre of the dispute is trust. Federalism in Somalia is a negotiated system: power is shared among the central government, the Federal Parliament, and regional administrations that control significant territory and revenue sources. Any perceived tilt in drafting clauses governing electoral systems, resource sharing or security arrangements can trigger accusations that one side is attempting to tilt the playing field.
Voices of suspicion
One federal legislator, Mursal Khalif, has been among the loudest critics. Khalif warned that extending work on the provisional constitution beyond its initial chapters is “unacceptable,” and accused the president of seeking amendments tailored to extend his own time in office. “Hassan Sheikh Mohamud failed to gain consensus for the 1st 4 chapters,” he said. “And after 18 months, it’s clear all HSM wanted were the 4 chapters regarding elections to tailor for himself.”
Those words capture a broader anxiety: across Africa and beyond, delays to electoral calendars have become a common source of instability, and the memory of leaders who have manipulated constitutions to stay in power looms large. In Somalia, where institutions are still consolidating and clan loyalties are politically potent, such fears take on a particularly combustible quality.
Regional frictions and the role of federal states
Puntland State and Jubaland are not merely critics on social media; they are functioning administrations with their own security forces and political constituencies. Their rejection of parts of the constitutional package adds a practical obstacle to any seamless ratification process. Mohamud has downplayed the rupture, saying ties “never break completely,” even when negotiations stall. “This is one nation, and differences must be acknowledged within that reality,” he said.
Yet paper reconciliations have not always translated into political harmony. Puntland State’s capital, Garowe, and Jubaland’s administration in Kismayo have previously negotiated separate deals with Mogadishu, ratified agreements differently, and pushed back against perceived centralisation. The tug-of-war reflects a larger question: can Somalia’s centre and regions find a workable compromise that both secures national unity and respects local autonomy?
Why the electoral commission matters
Mohamud’s insistence that the independent electoral body sets timelines is a deliberate appeal to the rule of law. An impartial commission could help defuse political tensions by providing technical deadlines and transparent criteria for voter registration and voting. But the commission’s capacity is constrained — by funding shortfalls, security risks, and the sheer logistical challenge of organising nationwide polls in a country recovering from insurgency and fragmentation.
International partners routinely emphasise the need for credible, inclusive elections; donors have promised technical and financial assistance in the past. But external support can only go so far if domestic actors remain sceptical of both process and motive.
Beyond Somalia: broader currents at play
Somalia’s struggle over constitutional reform is not an isolated case. Across the globe, debates over constitutions, term limits and electoral integrity are testing emerging democracies. The question is whether institutions can outlast personal ambitions, or whether the personalisation of power will further erode trust in governance.
For Somalis, the conversation also touches on cultural traditions of consensus-building. The Somali customary law, xeer, and the influence of clan elders have historically been tools for conflict resolution. Rekindling those mechanisms — alongside strengthening formal instruments like the electoral commission and the judiciary — could be part of a pathway out of stalemate.
What happens next?
Mohamud says his government remains open to dialogue and has accepted several opposition proposals. That olive branch will be tested in the weeks and months ahead as parliamentary debates resume and federal member states weigh in. If the president can demonstrate genuine inclusiveness — and if the electoral commission shows it can deliver a credible timeline — some of the heat may dissipate.
But trust, once frayed, is hard to rebuild. The challenge for Somalia is not only to write a constitution but to write one that people believe is worth defending. Will leaders choose compromise over confrontation? Can regional grievances be addressed without sacrificing national cohesion? The answers will determine whether Somalia takes a steady step toward lasting democratic practice or lapses back into the familiar cycle of mistrust.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
