The Federal Government responds to the UN request regarding the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Mogadishu (Caasimada Online) – The Federal Government of Somalia has strongly opposed criticism from experts affiliated with the United Nations regarding the dismissal of the former Chief Justice, while also announcing that the court's decision to annul the presidential term extension is "null and void and has no legal effect."

A press release from the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs accused the independent experts of the United Nations of violating their operational procedures after they issued a statement without first seeking a response from the government in Mogadishu.

The ministry stated that it values the UN human rights process and takes their concerns seriously, but reiterated that "it is committed to the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, and the constitution, which it sees as the fundamental pillars of a constitutional government."

This tension is rooted in the dismissal on November 4 of the Chief Justice, Baashe Yuusuf Axmed, while the court was handling a sensitive constitutional case related to the presidential term.

The day after, on November 5, the court issued a ruling that annulled the constitutional amendment that extended President Xasan Sheekh Maxamuud's term by one year, ordering that federal elections be held within 90 days.

On November 12, the United Nations special envoys, Margaret Satterthwaite and Ben Saul, called for the reinstatement of Baashe, arguing that his removal “did not follow constitutional procedures, including parliamentary approval or a proposal from the Judicial Service Commission,” and warned that this dispute could undermine operations against the Al-Shabaab group.

Transitional Process

Somalia is transitioning from the previous provisional constitution to a new constitution approved by parliament in March 2026, which has sparked opposition due to delays in parliamentary elections and a one-year extension granted to the president.

The Ministry of Justice stated that the government has not yet established several institutions mentioned in the 2026 Constitution, including the Supreme Judicial Council.

Dismissing reports of a clash between the executive and the judiciary or personal conflicts, the ministry noted that the government views this matter as “a constitutional and institutional issue that must be jointly safeguarded to protect the independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of the constitution, the proper judicial authority, procedural justice, and the continuity of governance.”

As that council is still vacant—just as it was when Baashe was first appointed—the removal was carried out in the same manner as the appointment, according to the ministry.

“The decision was made within the transitional framework, and there is no connection to the discussions of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutional case,” it added.

} Days after the dismissal, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ibraahim Iidle Suleymaan, was sworn in.

On the other hand, the ministry criticized the diplomatic conduct of UN experts in the city of Geneva, stating that they sent an email to the permanent delegation of Somalia to request an urgent meeting, without sending an official letter detailing the issues to be discussed for the delegation to inform Mogadishu.

Instead, the experts issued their press release after previously disseminating it, which the ministry described as contrary to Articles 6(a)–(b) and 13(a) of the Code of Conduct for Independent Experts of the Human Rights Council, which mandates an impartial assessment based on verified information, making it a prerequisite to first listen to the relevant government.

Legal debates of the government

According to the ministry, the dismissal of Baashe was enacted when the name of the Supreme Court was issued in the decisions of November 5.

“A court decision can only be issued by a legally constituted committee chaired by a chairperson holding that legitimacy. Therefore, the government does not recognize those statements as a court decision,” the ministry stated, adding that they have no legal basis.

The constitutional case—numbered MS/DST/1/2026, and submitted by former president Shariif Sheekh Axmed—has led the Office of the Attorney General to raise preliminary objections regarding the court's jurisdiction and the legality of the lawsuits.

A statement from the Office of the Attorney General on November 6 indicated that the judges failed to reach a decision on those objections or hold a public hearing where the parties could defend themselves before entering the substance of the case, which violated Articles 69 and 88 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 24 of Law No. 23 issued on June 27, 2016.

The Office of the Attorney General also argued that the formation of the panel of judges was contrary to Article 24(5) of the 2016 law—which mandates that the Chief Justice preside over the meeting—and that the court introduced a new argument that had not been presented before, which contradicts Article 77 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Ministry of Justice pointed out what it described as a legal contradiction in the court's decision, noting that the judges rejected the case against the amendment of the constitution due to the illegitimacy of the defendants, yet at the same time made a decision regarding the impact of that amendment on the term and powers of existing constitutional entities.

“For those reasons, the Office has decided that those statements are not in accordance with the law, and the government considers them null and void,” the statement said, noting that the Office of the Attorney General will take appropriate legal actions.

Political and security tensions

The ongoing conflict between government institutions is occurring at a time when the Federal Government is facing armed opposition in some of the regional states, particularly HirShabelle and South West, which is rooted in efforts to strengthen central authority and appoint leaders loyal to the government, while the African Union peacekeeping forces are also diminishing.

International partners have expressed concern that this constitutional dispute could divert attention from security matters.

Finally, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs emphasized that the disputed decisions do not violate the 2026 Constitution, and it promised that Mogadishu would approach its position through legal and institutional means, without any pressure on the judiciary or interference in the work of the judiciary.

The ministry added that the government is ready for dialogue with United Nations experts—having offered to share the statement of the Attorney General from November 6—and also with political parties and domestic institutions.