From the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Term Extensions to Institutional Confrontation and the Futu

04:03 AM November, 08 2026

Sudanese Online
خالد حسن يوسف-الصومال
My Library
Short URL


From the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Term Extensions to Institutional Confrontation and the Future of Federalism

1. Somalia Faces an Unprecedented Constitutional Crisis

Somalia has entered a new phase of its political and constitutional crisis following a Supreme Court ruling issued on Thursday, November 5, 2026, which held that the extension of constitutional terms could not be applied to the incumbent President and Parliament, and that their original terms had expired earlier in 2026.
The ruling followed a presidential decision to dismiss Supreme Court Chief Justice Basha Yusuf Ahmed and appoint Ibrahim Aidli Suleiman as his replacement. The Court rejected the decision, declaring it unconstitutional.
The crisis became even more complicated when the Office of the Attorney General rejected the Supreme Court's ruling on the expiration of constitutional terms, arguing that it had no legal effect.
The dispute has consequently shifted from the timing of elections to a confrontation among state institutions over the legality of decisions, the limits of constitutional authority, and the institution empowered to interpret the Constitution.
The central question is no longer simply when the President's or Parliament's term ends. It now concerns whether the constitutional system can resolve disputes among branches of government without allowing them to develop into a struggle over the legitimacy of the institutions themselves.

2. What Did the Supreme Court Decide؟

The Supreme Court considered a petition filed by former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed concerning the procedures used to amend the Constitution and the legal consequences of extending constitutional terms.
The Court distinguished between two fundamental issues.
The first concerned the legality of the constitutional amendment procedures. The Court declined to admit this part of the petition because the petitioner lacked the required legal standing.
The second concerned whether the newly established terms of office could be applied to the President and Parliament already exercising their constitutional powers before the amendments were adopted.
On this issue, the Court concluded that extending a term of office from four to five years does not automatically apply to incumbent officeholders unless the constitutional amendment expressly provides for such application.
Based on this interpretation, the Court ruled that the terms of both houses of Parliament had expired on April 14, 2026, and that the President's term had expired on May 15 of the same year.
It further considered decisions and measures taken by the relevant institutions after the expiration of their terms, within the scope of their constitutional and legal powers, to lack constitutional legitimacy.
The Court allowed the government to continue carrying out routine administrative functions in a limited caretaker capacity.
It called on political stakeholders to agree on an electoral framework within 30 days and to hold elections within 90 days.
However, the ruling did not clearly specify who would exercise presidential authority if these deadlines could not be met, opening another area of debate concerning the management of the transitional period.

3. The Roots of the Crisis: Between the Constitutions of 2012 and 2026

The roots of the crisis lie in longstanding disagreements over completing Somalia's constitutional framework, defining the nature of its political system, and regulating relations between federal institutions and federal member states.
Since 2012, Somalia has operated under a Provisional Constitution that established arrangements for organizing government institutions and distributing powers, while leaving certain constitutional matters unresolved.
In March 2024, Parliament approved amendments to the first four chapters, introducing a transition toward direct elections and a multiparty political system, while extending presidential and parliamentary terms to five years.
In March 2026, an amended Constitution was adopted and signed by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud on March 8. The presidency announced that this marked the end of the provisional constitutional period.
However, the adoption of the Constitution did not resolve political disagreements over the legality of the amendment procedures or the extent of national consensus surrounding them.
Opposition groups and federal administrations objected to aspects of the constitutional process, particularly those concerning the distribution of powers, elections, and terms of office.
The disagreement developed into a direct crisis when the government maintained that the new constitutional arrangements permitted the incumbent institutions to remain in office until 2027, while the opposition argued that their original terms had expired in 2026.

4. The Position of the Presidency and Government

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's administration supports the transition from indirect elections to direct popular voting, viewing constitutional and electoral reforms as necessary steps toward developing the political system.
The government argues that continuing the previous electoral arrangements does not meet citizens' aspirations for direct political participation.
The National Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission announced a timetable scheduling parliamentary elections for April 15, 2027, and presidential elections for May 15 of the same year.
The government's position is based on its interpretation of the constitutional amendments and the associated transitional arrangements.
However, this interpretation became the subject of a direct judicial dispute following the Supreme Court ruling.
On November 6, the Office of the Attorney General rejected the ruling concerning the expiration of constitutional terms, arguing that it produced no legal effect.
The crisis has therefore come to encompass disagreements over the substance of the Constitution, the authority responsible for applying it, and the legal consequences of judicial decisions issued under its provisions.

5. The Opposition and Federal Member States
Opposition groups maintain that the transition to a new electoral system should be based on broad political and constitutional consensus and should not result in extending existing terms beyond the periods for which officeholders were elected.
Their objections concern the procedures used to approve constitutional amendments, mechanisms for administering elections, guarantees of electoral integrity, and the limits of federal institutional powers.
These disagreements have been particularly evident in relations between the Federal Government and the administrations of Puntland and Jubaland, both of which have objected to aspects of the constitutional and political process.
The Somali Future Council also rejected the announced electoral timetable, arguing that it had not emerged from comprehensive national consultations.
This does not necessarily mean that all opposition groups reject direct elections in principle.
Rather, the dispute also concerns the guarantees, procedures, and constitutional framework under which elections would take place.
This highlights one of the fundamental challenges of Somali state-building: reaching agreement on the structure of the political system is no less important than agreeing on the individuals who will administer its institutions.

6. Judicial Independence and the Separation of Powers

The confrontation between the presidency and the Supreme Court represents one of the most sensitive aspects of the crisis.
The presidency announced the dismissal of the Chief Justice, citing complaints about the administration of justice and the need for judicial reform.
The Court, however, rejected the decision, arguing that the President lacked the authority to dismiss its Chief Justice unilaterally and that the measure constituted interference with judicial independence.
The Court also accused the presidency of attempting to influence its consideration of the constitutional case concerning the extension of terms.
Media reports and opposition figures referred to the deployment of government forces around the Court's headquarters and demands that the Chief Justice leave the premises.
However, some details of these incidents, particularly allegations concerning an arrest, have not been independently verified.
The significance of this development extends beyond the disagreement between the President and the Chief Justice.
It concerns the principle of separation of powers and the judiciary's ability to issue rulings affecting the executive branch without those rulings becoming grounds for institutional confrontation.
Judicial independence does not mean immunity from accountability. Equally, judicial reform should not become a means of influencing cases under consideration.
This issue requires clear legal rules governing appointments, dismissals, accountability, and the authorities responsible for each procedure.

7. Federalism and the Crisis over the Distribution of Powers

The current crisis reveals a deeper problem concerning the nature of Somali federalism.
The Constitution regulates not only relations among the President, Parliament, and government, but also relations between the Federal Government and federal member states.
Disputed issues include the distribution of powers, electoral administration, public resources, political representation, and the limits of federal intervention in regional affairs.
Somalia's experience has demonstrated that the absence of a stable agreement on these matters repeatedly exposes electoral processes to political confrontation.
Disagreements between the Federal Government and certain member states also cannot be separated from the broader debate over the nature of the state and the centralization of political decision-making.
Consequently, any settlement limited to setting a new election date, without addressing the rules governing the distribution of power, may resolve part of the immediate crisis but will not address the underlying causes of its recurrence.

8. Potential Security Implications

The constitutional crisis comes at a time when Somalia continues to face significant security challenges, particularly the activities of Al-Shabaab, the need to strengthen national security forces, and continued reliance on various forms of international military and logistical support.
The African Union mission also faces difficulties related to funding, troop redeployment, and the allocation of security responsibilities.
Developments involving Ugandan troops have further highlighted the importance of assessing the capacity of Somali institutions to manage the next phase of the country's security transition.
Under these circumstances, continued disputes among state authorities could weaken political and security coordination or divert attention and resources away from security priorities.
However, this possibility does not mean that the constitutional dispute will inevitably lead to a security collapse.
The actual impact will depend on the ability of institutions to continue performing their functions and on the commitment of political actors to keeping their disputes out of the security services.

9. The Economy and Investor Confidence

The potential consequences of the crisis extend beyond political and judicial institutions.
Legal and constitutional stability is among the factors influencing the decisions of investors and economic partners, particularly in countries seeking to expand investment and rebuild their institutions.
Continued disputes over institutional legitimacy may increase uncertainty surrounding government policies, public contracts, regulatory decisions, and financial obligations.
They may also affect the government's ability to implement economic reforms and coordinate with international partners.
However, independent data are not currently available to determine direct economic losses resulting from the judicial ruling or the recent institutional confrontation.
These consequences should therefore be treated as potential risks rather than economic outcomes established by statistical evidence.

10. National Dialogue: Between Opportunity and Challenge

The presidency has called for a national political dialogue in Mogadishu from November 14 to 18, 2026, involving political stakeholders, representatives of federal member states, and civil society organizations.
In statements made on November 5, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud reaffirmed the government's willingness to engage in dialogue with different political actors.
However, the forthcoming dialogue faces greater challenges than those that existed before the Supreme Court ruling.
The task is no longer limited to agreeing on an electoral timetable.
It must also address disagreements over the legitimacy of the continued exercise of power by existing institutions, the limits of their authority, and the legal consequences of the judicial ruling.
The success of the dialogue will also depend on the participation of key stakeholders and their willingness to agree on arrangements that can be implemented in practice.
A settlement may require a clear framework for managing the transitional period, ensuring institutional continuity, and addressing disagreements concerning the judiciary, elections, and federalism.
Simply issuing general political declarations without agreement on implementation procedures and legal guarantees could allow the crisis to continue in another form.

11. Possible Scenarios

Scenario One: A Political and Constitutional Settlement
The parties reach an agreement addressing the dispute over constitutional terms, establishing arrangements for managing the next phase, and creating an electoral framework that enjoys broad acceptance.
Scenario Two: Continued Institutional Division
The government continues operating according to its interpretation of the Constitution and its electoral timetable, while the opposition maintains its support for the judicial ruling, prolonging disagreements over the legitimacy of institutional decisions and authority.
Scenario Three: Escalating Federal Disagreements
Tensions between the Federal Government and certain member states intensify, affecting political, administrative, and security coordination and complicating electoral preparations.
Scenario Four: Rebuilding Constitutional Consensus
The crisis becomes an opportunity to review constitutional amendment procedures, the distribution of powers, judicial independence, and the establishment of clearer mechanisms for resolving disputes among branches of government.
These scenarios are not definitive predictions. They represent analytical possibilities dependent on the decisions taken by political actors and the institutions concerned in the coming period.

12. What Does Somalia Need to Resolve؟

The current crisis highlights five fundamental issues:
Establishing the constitutional framework governing the operation of federal institutions.
Clarifying the powers of different branches of government and the mechanisms for enforcing judicial rulings.
Reaching agreement on an electoral system, timetable, and guarantees acceptable to the relevant stakeholders.
Addressing federal disputes concerning the distribution of powers, resources, and political representation.
Ensuring the continuity of security and public services independently of political disputes.
Holding meetings or issuing declarations of consensus will not, by itself, resolve these issues.
The success of any settlement will depend on its ability to establish enforceable institutional rules and on the willingness of political actors to respect those rules after the crisis has ended.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Government or a Crisis of the State؟

A judicial ruling concerning the legitimacy of the President's and Parliament's continued tenure does not mean that the Somali state has ceased to exist or that its institutions have stopped functioning.
Similarly, disagreements between the government and opposition do not, in themselves, constitute a collapse of the constitutional order.
The danger lies in the transformation of political competition into a dispute over the legal framework from which state institutions derive their legitimacy.
When branches of government disagree over constitutional interpretation, executive decisions conflict with judicial rulings, and the legitimacy of institutional continuity becomes contested, the problem extends beyond the survival of a government or the expiration of a presidential term.
It affects the state's ability to regulate the transfer of power, guarantee institutional independence, and manage political disagreements within an agreed legal framework.
State-building cannot be reduced to holding elections alone. Nor can elections be separated from the Constitution and the institutions that confer legitimacy upon their outcomes.
The strength of a state does not come from keeping individuals in office, but from the stability of the institutions and rules governing the exercise and transfer of power.
The real test facing Somalia today is not simply determining the date of the next elections, but demonstrating that its political system can manage constitutional disputes without allowing them to develop into a crisis threatening the continuity of state institutions.
This raises the question that should concern Somalis:
Will the current crisis become an opportunity to rebuild constitutional consensus and strengthen a state governed by institutions, or will political disagreements deepen into a broader crisis affecting the future of both government and the state؟

Khalid Hassan Yusuf

Arabic Forum