In March 2026, Somalia’s Southwest State has emerged as the centre of a rapidly escalating political and military crisis. What began as a dispute over elections and authority has, within the span of two weeks, deteriorated into armed clashes on the outskirts of Baidoa. The crisis reflects not only a breakdown in relations between regional and federal leadership, but also the fragility of Somalia’s broader federal system.
Severing Ties with Mogadishu
The crisis took a decisive turn on March 17, when the Southwest administration, led by President Abdi-Aziz Laftagareen, announced it was severing ties with the Federal Government of Somalia. The move was accompanied by strong accusations that Mogadishu was interfering in regional governance and actively supporting rival political and armed factions. This marked a sharp escalation in tensions that had been building quietly over disputes related to elections and constitutional authority.
Core Dispute: Electoral Legitimacy
At the core of the conflict lies disagreement over the legitimacy of regional elections. Laftagareen proceeded with organizing parliamentary and presidential elections within Southwest State, a move the federal government swiftly rejected as unconstitutional. As both sides hardened their positions, political disagreement gave way to confrontation on the ground.
Fighting Spreads Near Baidoa
By March 21, fighting had broken out in Habar-Dooy, an area roughly 20 kilometres from Baidoa, where Southwest forces clashed with opposition-aligned fighters believed to have backing from the federal government.
The violence spread in the following days, with renewed clashes reported in Deynuunay on March 29. Meanwhile, reports of federal-aligned troop movements into Buurhakaba heightened fears that Baidoa itself could become the site of a larger battle. For civilians, the consequences have been immediate and severe, with families fleeing their homes amid growing uncertainty and fear.
Laftagareen’s Re-election Rejected
The political situation reached a critical point on March 28, when Laftagareen was declared re-elected as president. The announcement was immediately rejected by both the federal government and opposition groups, who labelled the process illegitimate. This moment effectively transformed a political standoff into a direct struggle over authority and recognition, with each side claiming legal and political legitimacy.
A Former Alliance Unravels
The breakdown between Laftagareen and Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud adds another layer of complexity to the crisis. The two leaders were once allies within the Justice and Solidarity Party (JSP), but their relationship unraveled over disputes related to power-sharing and the direction of political reforms. Disagreements over key party positions and broader constitutional questions eventually widened into a full political split. Laftagareen’s later remarks, suggesting he had previously operated under pressure, underscore how deeply strained the relationship had become.
Competing Sides and External Support
As the conflict intensified, both sides appeared to draw support from a range of actors. The Southwest administration relied on its regional security forces and maintained ties with Ethiopian elements present in the Bay region, while also receiving political backing from a significant number of federal parliamentarians critical of central government actions. On the other side, opposition forces—sometimes referred to as the Southwest Salvation Front—were widely believed to be supported by the federal government, both politically and militarily. Their growing presence in strategic locations such as Buurhakaba indicated an organized effort to challenge the regional administration’s control.
International Reactions and Warnings
The crisis also drew reactions from the international community. The United Nations and the United Kingdom called for immediate dialogue, warning that the conflict could undermine ongoing operations against Al-Shabab and disrupt humanitarian assistance efforts in an already vulnerable region. These concerns highlight the risks that internal political conflict poses not just to governance, but to security and aid delivery across Somalia.
Regional Solidarity with Laftagareen
Adding to the complexity, the Somali Mustaqbal Council, a coalition of federal member states including Puntland and Jubaland, publicly aligned itself with Laftagareen, endorsing his decision to cut ties with the federal government and criticizing what it described as federal overreach. This support signalled that the crisis was no longer confined to Southwest State, but had begun to reflect broader national political divisions, with implications for other federal member states.
Sudden Resignation and New Phase
In a dramatic and unexpected development on March 30, the crisis entered a new phase. Laftagareen announced his resignation just hours after federal and opposition forces reportedly entered Baidoa. The speed of events stunned observers, bringing an abrupt end to his seven-year leadership. Before stepping down, he appointed his finance minister as interim president, pending a political resolution. Reports indicated that Laftagareen subsequently departed for Nairobi following negotiations that may have required his resignation as a condition for safe exit.
What Comes Next for Southwest State?
The rapid collapse of a long-standing regional leader illustrates the volatility of the situation and raises serious questions about what comes next. Southwest State now stands at a crossroads, with the potential for either political reconciliation or further instability. The stakes are high: continued conflict risks deepening humanitarian suffering, destabilizing the region, and weakening the fight against Al-Shabab.
A Reflection of Somalia’s Deeper Federal Crisis
Ultimately, what is unfolding in Baidoa is more than a localized dispute. It is a reflection of unresolved tensions within Somalia’s federal system, where questions of authority, legitimacy, and power-sharing remain contested. If these issues are not addressed through dialogue and institutional compromise, the events of March 2026 may serve as a precedent for future conflicts—where political disagreements are settled not through negotiation, but through force.
