By Goth Mohamed Goth
MOGADISHU — The President of the Federal Government of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, has signed into law the country’s newly revised constitution, following its approval by both houses of the Federal Parliament on March 4th.
At a ceremony held at the presidential palace in Mogadishu, attended by the speakers of both parliamentary chambers, President Mohamud hailed the move as the culmination of a vital legislative process. “The Federal Parliament of Somalia has finalized the constitutional review,” he stated. “From this day forward, we are committed to its implementation and to ensuring the Somali people attain the rights and duties enshrined within it.”
President Mohamud framed the new charter as a unifying “social contract” for the nation. “This document is a social contract, and I hope it will lead Somalia towards peace, stability, and upright, transparent governance,” he added.
While the president’s signature represents the final step in enacting the constitution, the process has been anything but unifying. Instead of cementing national consensus, the hurried ratification has significantly escalated political tensions, exposing deep fractures in the country’s federal system.
Widespread Opposition and Accusations of a Power Grab
The constitutional changes have been met with fierce resistance from key federal member states, opposition parties, and civil society groups, who view the process as fundamentally illegitimate.
· Rejection by Federal Member States: Puntland, one of Somalia’s most established federal states, has outright rejected the new constitution. The Puntland government has declared it will not recognize any amendments made without its participation and has suspended ties with the federal government, essentially functioning independently. Jubaland and South West states have also expressed serious reservations, arguing that the review process violated the federal principles outlined in the Provisional Constitution. Their core grievance is that such a fundamental national pact cannot be unilaterally imposed by Mogadishu.
· An “Illegitimate and Exclusive” Process: Critics, including prominent opposition leaders and lawmakers, contend that the process was rushed through parliament without the necessary consensus. They argue that the required consultations with federal member states, clan elders, and civil society were either superficial or completely ignored. This lack of inclusivity, they say, has produced a document that reflects the interests of the central government in Mogadishu, not the will of the Somali people.
· Allegations of Term Extension: The most incendiary accusation is that the revisions are a political maneuver by President Mohamud to consolidate power and potentially extend his time in office. By embedding controversial changes in the constitution, opponents believe the president is seeking to weaken federalism and centralize authority, undermining the power-sharing agreements that have been the basis for Somalia’s fragile stability. They view the new constitution not as a step towards democracy, but as a tool for authoritarian rule.
A Deepening Political Crisis
Far from resolving Somalia’s political uncertainty, the signing of the constitution risks plunging the country into an even deeper crisis.
· Deepening the Federal Rift: The move has widened the chasm between the federal government in Mogadishu and the semi-autonomous regional states. By pressing ahead without their consent, Mogadishu has effectively dared these states to secede from the national framework, threatening to unravel the very fabric of the federal system. This could lead to a collapse of security and economic cooperation, creating parallel and competing authorities.
· A Constitution Without Consensus, A Recipe for Instability: A constitution that is rejected by powerful regional actors and a significant portion of the political class is a recipe for perpetual conflict. Instead of a binding “social contract,” it becomes a source of dispute, a weapon to be used in political battles. This contested legitimacy undermines the rule of law, as different factions will adhere to different versions of what is legal.
· Paralysis and Potential for Conflict: The resulting standoff risks paralyzing national institutions. With key federal states refusing to recognize the central government’s authority on constitutional matters, implementing any of the new charter’s provisions will be nearly impossible. The heightened political temperature and mutual accusations of illegitimacy create a volatile environment that could easily escalate into open conflict, undoing years of hard-won progress and diverting focus from critical priorities like the fight against Al-Shabaab
