Blind Loyalty in a Time of National Disintegration: Senator Abdihakim’s Defense of Hassan Sheikh

At a moment when Somalia is confronting a deepening constitutional crisis, fractured federal relations and mounting security concerns, Senator Abdihakim Moallim Ahmed appears more interested in defending President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud than questioning the political decisions threatening the country’s unity. His latest remarks expose the growing intolerance of dissent within the governing camp.

MOGADISHU (WDN ) – Senator Abdihakim Moallim Ahmed, a member of Somalia’s Upper House, has blamed opposition leaders for the repeated failure of political negotiations with the Federal Government, accusing them of pursuing personal political interests rather than national unity. His comments came after the postponement of the national consultation meeting President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud had called for 14 November.

Speaking to journalists at the Upper House, the senator argued that the opposition was not genuinely interested in dialogue and insisted that Somalia should resolve its internal disputes without repeatedly appealing to the international community for mediation. “Somalia has moved beyond the era when the international community dictates what happens here. Somalia belongs to Somalis,” he said.

Senator Abdihakim Moalim

There is, of course, a legitimate principle behind the senator’s argument: national political disputes should be resolved through Somali-led processes. But sovereignty cannot be invoked selectively to shield a government from scrutiny, nor can it be used to dismiss opposition leaders who question the constitutionality and legitimacy of decisions taken by the presidency.

The more important question is why the country has reached a point where even an attempt to convene political talks repeatedly collapses.

Loyalty to the president is not loyalty to the country

Senator Abdihakim is not a political newcomer. His experience in the Upper House and his involvement in the constitutional review process should place him in a position to understand the distinction between defending the state and defending the incumbent president.

Yet his latest intervention gives the impression that opposition to President Hassan Sheikh is itself an illegitimate political position. Rather than examining the substantive grievances raised by opposition leaders, he places the responsibility for the crisis almost entirely on their shoulders.

That is a troubling approach from a legislator whose constitutional responsibility should include scrutinising executive power, defending institutional independence and representing the interests of the Somali people.

The senator has consistently defended the government’s constitutional amendments, arguing that Parliament should own the process and that Somalia should make its own constitutional decisions. But parliamentary approval alone cannot settle questions of legitimacy when major political stakeholders and federal member states dispute the process and its consequences.

A constitution is not merely a document endorsed by a parliamentary majority. It must command sufficient political and public confidence to serve as the foundation of a functioning state.

A constitutional crisis cannot be dismissed as opposition politics

Somalia is facing a profound dispute over its constitutional arrangements, electoral framework and the distribution of authority between the federal government and federal member states. Puntland and Jubaland remain deeply estranged from Mogadishu, while relations with other regional administrations have also been strained.

The controversy surrounding the constitutional amendments and the government’s proposed electoral arrangements has further weakened confidence in the federal political settlement. The opposition’s objections are not simply a demand for political positions or a share of government. They concern the rules under which the country is governed, the independence of national institutions and the legitimacy of the transition.

The controversy has also reached the judiciary. The dispute surrounding the Supreme Court and the removal of its former Chief Justice, Baashe Yusuf Ahmed, has intensified concerns about the separation of powers and the independence of the courts.

These are constitutional questions that demand serious parliamentary scrutiny. A senator should be asking whether the executive has respected institutional boundaries, not treating criticism of the president as an attack on Somalia itself.

When political debate begins to resemble social-media tribalism

What is particularly disappointing is the tone of the senator’s intervention. Instead of offering a considered parliamentary assessment of the political impasse, he resorts to sweeping accusations against the opposition and dismisses the need for international mediation without addressing why confidence between Somali political actors has deteriorated so severely.

His language risks reducing a complex national crisis to a simplistic division between those who support the president and those supposedly obstructing the country. That is the sort of polarising rhetoric more commonly associated with partisan social-media exchanges than with the measured conduct expected of an experienced national legislator.

Even more troubling is the reported tendency among government supporters to associate opponents of the administration’s political agenda with the rhetoric used against Al-Shabaab. Political opposition is not terrorism. Disagreement with the president is not treason. Demanding constitutional accountability is not hostility towards the Somali state.

A functioning democracy depends on precisely the opposite principle: citizens and political leaders must be free to challenge those in power without being portrayed as enemies of the nation.

The responsibility of the Upper House

The Upper House exists, in part, to represent the federal member states and protect the federal character of the Somali state. Its members should be especially alert to the consequences of political decisions that deepen divisions between Mogadishu and regional administrations.

At a time when federal cooperation is weakening and the constitutional settlement is contested, the country needs legislators capable of challenging executive excesses, facilitating compromise and defending institutions above personalities.

Senator Abdihakim should therefore explain how blaming the opposition advances reconciliation, how dismissing mediation helps restore trust, and how unconditional support for the government’s position serves the interests of federalism.

The postponement of the 14 November meeting was not simply a scheduling problem. It was another indication that the political conditions for meaningful dialogue have not been established. The government and opposition remain divided over the constitutional framework, electoral arrangements, participation and the terms of negotiation.

Somalia needs independent legislators, not presidential defenders

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud does not need unquestioning defenders in Parliament. He needs legislators prepared to tell him when his policies are damaging the country, when federal relations are deteriorating and when constitutional disputes threaten the survival of the political system.

The senator’s appeal to sovereignty would carry greater weight if it were accompanied by an equally strong defence of constitutionalism, judicial independence, federal cooperation and the right to political dissent.

Somalia is not strengthened by treating the president’s political interests as synonymous with the national interest. Nor will the country recover through rhetoric that blames every institutional failure on the opposition.

The duty of a senator is to defend the Constitution and the Somali people, not to protect the political fortunes of the president. At a moment when the federal state is coming apart, Somalia needs independent voices in Parliament—not blind loyalty dressed up as patriotism.

wardheerNews