Mogadishu– A fierce political battle is underway in Somalia’s capital following President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s endorsement of a new constitution, a move that has sharply divided the country’s leadership and raised the specter of instability. The charter, signed on March 8, 2026, replaces the provisional framework that has guided the country since 2012 and introduces sweeping changes to how Somalia is governed, most notably by extending term limits and shifting to direct elections.
At the core of the dispute is not just what the new document contains, but how it was passed. Critics, including a broad coalition of opposition politicians and two influential federal member states, argue the process was rushed and exclusive, violating the very consensus-based principles that have held the fragile state together for over a decade.
A New Political Blueprint
The new constitution fundamentally alters the 2012 political settlement, which was built on four key foundations: regular four-year term elections, a federal structure, a parliamentary system, and the 4.5 clan power-sharing formula that distributed seats among major clan groups.
Under the new charter, the 4.5 clan formula is effectively discarded in favor of direct elections based on the principle of “one person, one vote.” Parliamentarians will no longer be selected by traditional elders and regional leaders but will instead face a popular electorate. Additionally, the document extends the term limits for the president and parliament from four years to five.
Beyond these changes, the new constitution also consolidates executive authority. While the position of prime minister remains, the system shifts decisively toward a presidential model where the president holds ultimate authority to lead the government. This represents a significant departure from the previous parliamentary system, where the prime minister was appointed by the president but accountable to parliament.
Proponents within the government frame this as a necessary evolution. They argue that the provisional constitution was never meant to be permanent and that these changes—particularly the move toward universal suffrage and a stronger executive—represent a historic step toward modern democracy after years of transitional governance.
Procedural Disputes and Parliamentary Chaos
The path to ratification was contentious. On March 3, Speaker of Parliament Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nur (Madoobe) presided over a joint session where the amendments were approved. However, accounts of the session differ sharply between government officials and the opposition.
Opposition figures, including prominent politician Abdirahman Abdishakur, contend that the Speaker forced the items onto the agenda without adequate consultation, effectively railroading the process. They claim the haste prevented meaningful debate on 45 amended articles, some of which fundamentally restructure the state.
The opposition alliance, the Somali Future Council (SFC), has been particularly vocal ever since talks to bring a common ground with the government collapsed. In a statement, the group alleged that over 50 lawmakers were excluded from the deliberations, a charge that, if true, would cast doubt on the inclusiveness of the vote.
According to figures circulated by state-affiliated media, 186 of the 275 members of the lower house were present for the vote, representing approximately 68 percent of the chamber. While this constitutes a majority, it falls short of the required two-thirds threshold necessary for such foundational changes.
Regional States Push Back
The most significant opposition comes from Somalia’s federal member states, the semi-autonomous regions that form the backbone of the federal system. The administrations in Puntland and Jubaland have outright rejected the new charter, declaring they will not recognize amendments adopted without a national consensus.
Puntland’s position is particularly entrenched. The region had already been at odds with Mogadishu over what it perceived as federal overreach, including the disruption of flights carrying its legislators. The ratification of the constitution has now escalated that dispute.
The decision by two Puntland ministers to resign from the federal cabinet underscores the depth of the rift. Petroleum State Minister Ismail Buraale stated that the document was “not properly finalized,” while Labor State Minister Aynaanshe Yusuf Hussein expressed his unwillingness to be “part of anything that harms the people of Puntland and their government.” The subsequent resignation of the deputy national security advisor, a senior figure, signals that unease over the charter permeates the highest levels of the executive.
A Legal Challenge in Arusha
In an unprecedented move in Somali politics, MP Dr. Abdillahi Hashi Abib has filed a formal challenge with the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) in Arusha, Tanzania. Dr. Abib’s case argues that the ratification process violated both Somalia’s provisional constitution and the treaty establishing the East African Community.
He is asking the regional court to issue an interim injunction to suspend the implementation of the new constitution until the legality of the process can be fully reviewed. The urgency of his request is heightened by the impending expiration of mandates.
With parliament’s term set to end on April 14 and the president’s on May 15, a constitutional vacuum is a very real possibility. Dr. Abib warns that without judicial intervention, the political standoff could escalate into a broader crisis.
Echoes of 2021 and Fears for Stability
The current impasse evokes troubling memories for many Somalis. In 2021, a similar dispute over an attempt to extend President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo’s term led to open warfare in the streets of Mogadishu. Security forces fractured, opposition supporters clashed with government troops, and the country teetered on the brink of a major conflict. That crisis was only averted when Farmaajo, facing intense domestic and international pressure, reversed course.
Analysts fear history may repeat itself. The underlying dynamics are similar: a unilateral move to extend political timelines without consensus, a mobilized opposition, and regional states threatening to disengage.
Beyond the immediate political crisis, there are grave concerns about its secondary effects. A divided government in Mogadishu is a distracted one. The ongoing military offensive against the Al-Shabaab militant group requires unity of purpose and undivided attention. Political infighting of this magnitude risks creating a vacuum that the insurgents could exploit, potentially reversing hard-won security gains. Civil society groups have urged all parties to show restraint, warning that ordinary civilians are the ones who suffer most when political tensions spill over into violence.
Looking Ahead
International partners, including the African Union and the regional bloc IGAD, have called for dialogue and offered to mediate. However, the path forward remains unclear. The government maintains that the amendments are legally sound and final. The opposition and dissident regional states insist they are illegitimate. With a legal challenge pending and constitutional deadlines approaching, Somalia’s political actors have a narrow window to find a negotiated path that prevents the country from once again being consumed by crisis. For now, Mogadishu holds its breath, watching to see whether its leaders will choose consensus or confrontation.
Hope Somalia would recover fast as it has many challenges threatening its future. Hassan Sheikh will have to make concessions if he wants to rule a stable country the next 5 years.