The Attorney General of the Federal Government Opposes the Supreme Court's Decision, Announcing That He...
What happened
60-second readThe Attorney General of the Federal Government of Somalia criticized the Supreme Court's decision regarding the implementation of the new constitution, stating he would take legal actions.
What else the report says
- What happens nextThe office clarified that it will take appropriate legal actions, emphasizing that its position is based on upholding the law, national interests, and preserving the integrity of the Somali state.
- A press release issued recently by the Office of the Attorney General stated that the court had violated the legal process and procedures of litigation, and that it had not considered the legal objections that the office had previously submitted.
- The office stated that the Supreme Court should have first responded to the legal objections submitted, either accepting or rejecting them, but the court claimed it had issued a decision without providing any response to that matter.
- Additionally, the Attorney General accused the court of violating the principle of adversarial proceedings, stating that if the objections submitted were rejected, a hearing of the case should have been scheduled, giving the parties an opportunity to present their arguments.
Reported by Caasimada Online
- Still unclear
- What specific legal actions will the Attorney General pursue?
You are reading the English translation.

More from this report
Original report with a saved translation · Soomaali
Soomaali · Machine translated · Not human reviewed
Reader translation: English
Mogadishu (Caasimada Online) – The Attorney General of the Federal Government of Somalia has described the decision made by the Supreme Court of the country to annul the implementation of the new constitution as illegal, stating that he will take swift legal action.
A press release issued recently by the Office of the Attorney General stated that the court had violated the legal process and procedures of litigation, and that it had not considered the legal objections that the office had previously submitted.
The office stated that the Supreme Court should have first responded to the legal objections submitted, either accepting or rejecting them, but the court claimed it had issued a decision without providing any response to that matter.
Additionally, the Attorney General accused the court of violating the principle of adversarial proceedings, stating that if the objections submitted were rejected, a hearing of the case should have been scheduled, giving the parties an opportunity to present their arguments.
The letter also stated that the court did not adhere to the legal structure of the Supreme Court, as, according to the office's argument, the Chief Justice should have presided over the judges reviewing the case.
Another point raised by the Office of the Attorney General was that the court had created a new case that was not the one originally opened, stating that this contradicted the legal provisions governing court cases.
The Attorney General concluded by stating that the decision or statement issued by the Supreme Court judges is not in accordance with the law and has no legal effect.
The office clarified that it will take appropriate legal actions, emphasizing that its position is based on upholding the law, national interests, and preserving the integrity of the Somali state.
However, the Government Attorney's rejection comes at a time when there is a legal crisis arising from the dismissal of the Chief Justice, Attorney Baashe Yusuf, who is said to have leaned towards the opposition, which strongly opposes the new constitution and the electoral process being conducted by the government.
Context and open questions
Reader briefing
Article context
What happened
- The Attorney General of the Federal Government of Somalia criticized the Supreme Court's decision regarding the implementation of the new constitution, stating he would take legal actions.
Key claims
- The Attorney General of the Federal Government of Somalia has described the Supreme Court's decision regarding the implementation of the new constitution as unlawful.
- The Attorney General stated that the Supreme Court violated legal procedures and did not respond to legal objections previously submitted by his office.
- The Attorney General accused the Supreme Court of creating a new case that was not the original one filed.
- The Attorney General announced that he will take appropriate legal actions based on the situation.
Source limitations
- The article does not include a response from the Supreme Court regarding the Attorney General's claims.
- The article relies on statements from the Attorney General without independent verification.
- The article does not provide details on the specific legal actions the Attorney General plans to take.
Reader takeaway
The Attorney General's opposition to the Supreme Court's decision raises significant legal questions regarding the new constitution's implementation.
What remains unclear
- What specific legal actions will the Attorney General pursue?
- How will the Supreme Court respond to these allegations?
- What implications does this conflict have for the implementation of the new constitution?
Why it matters
The article does not provide enough independently verified detail to assess the specific significance of this event beyond what is reported.
Follow Warkasta on WhatsApp
Follow our channel for the latest news.
Follow the channel →Why this story appears
This is a single source report from Warkasta’s monitored network. The source link remains available so you can read the publisher’s original context.
- Source count
- 1
- Sources used
- Caasimada Online
- Language mix
- Soomaali
- Translation status
- Stored translation available for this language
- AI synthesis
- No AI synthesis is used for this story panel
Signals used: somalia · general · inuu · maxkamadda · guud
Keep reading
Live story thread
Open live story