Hassan Sheikh’s Dialogue Offer Faces a Credibility Crisis as Opposition Questions His Intentions

The President promises political opponents freedom from arrest and intimidation while his own administration faces accusations of undermining judicial independence and narrowing the space for dissent.

MOGADISHU (WDN) — President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is calling for dialogue while presiding over a political crisis that raises serious questions about his commitment to the constitutional principles such dialogue is supposed to protect. He assures the opposition that no one will be arrested or killed for holding opposing political views, yet his administration faces accusations of using executive authority to interfere with judicial independence and warnings that political mobilization will not be tolerated.

The contradiction is stark: how can the President credibly promise political freedom while the independence of the country’s highest judicial institutions is itself under challenge?

His invitation to the opposition also leaves a fundamental question unanswered: is he prepared to reconsider the constitutional amendments and electoral decisions that triggered the confrontation, or does he expect his opponents to accept a political course already determined by the Presidency?

Speaking amid the escalating political crisis, Hassan Sheikh said the government’s negotiating platform remained open to opposition figures and that an alternative framework could be considered.

“There is no one who will be arrested or killed because of their political views. But inciting people against one another, supplying them with weapons and mobilising them has no place,” he said.

The unresolved questions behind the political standoff

The President did not clearly establish whether negotiations would reopen the fundamental questions at the heart of the crisis: the disputed constitutional amendments, the electoral framework, the mandates of federal institutions and the limits of presidential authority.

This is the distinction between genuine negotiations and a government-sponsored consultation. Inviting opposition leaders to express their views is not the same as giving them an equal role in determining the country’s constitutional and political future.

If the constitutional amendments and electoral arrangements are effectively non-negotiable, the proposed initiative risks becoming an exercise in securing political acceptance for decisions already taken by the Presidency. The opposition is seeking a binding political settlement based on mutual consent, rather than an opportunity merely to register objections.

Executive power and the independence of the judiciary

The dismissal of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed has turned the political confrontation into a direct test of judicial independence. Baashe has challenged the President’s decision, arguing that it violates constitutional protections for the judiciary. The circumstances are particularly troubling because the dispute arose amid a politically sensitive constitutional case involving the President’s own tenure and the legality of decisions taken by his administration.

The principle at stake is fundamental: the executive cannot be allowed to exercise control over the judiciary, particularly when the courts are being asked to rule on the constitutionality of executive decisions. A judge must be able to examine presidential actions without fearing dismissal, intimidation or retaliation. Otherwise, judicial independence becomes a constitutional promise without practical protection.

Under Article 106 of Somalia’s 2012 Provisional Constitution, the judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches. That guarantee is not a ceremonial provision. It is a safeguard against the concentration of state power and a protection for citizens and institutions seeking impartial legal remedies against the government.

The dispute is therefore not simply about Baashe’s personal position or the authority to appoint and dismiss judicial officials. It concerns whether constitutional procedures are being respected and whether the judiciary can exercise its responsibilities without executive pressure. Any removal of a senior judicial officer must be grounded in clear constitutional authority, follow the prescribed procedures and be subject to appropriate legal scrutiny.

It is important to distinguish Baashe’s public challenge from a formal Supreme Court judgment overturning his dismissal. Nevertheless, the confrontation itself raises serious questions about the separation of powers. If a President can remove a senior judicial figure while the judiciary is examining a dispute that could affect his own political position, the appearance of executive interference is difficult to dismiss.

The consequences extend beyond one judge. A judiciary perceived as vulnerable to presidential pressure cannot credibly serve as the final constitutional safeguard for the country. Once citizens and political actors lose confidence that courts can rule independently, disputes that should be resolved through law risk spilling into the streets and deepening institutional fragmentation.

The danger of criminalising political dissent

While the President’s rejection of political violence is a legitimate principle, the distinction between peaceful dissent and criminal conduct must be determined through evidence, due process and independent judicial review.

Criticism of the government, opposition to constitutional amendments and demands for political change cannot themselves constitute grounds for arrest. There is a danger that broadly defined accusations of incitement or mobilisation could be used to portray political opponents as security threats, further narrowing Somalia’s political space.

The President also maintained that Somalia should resolve its internal disputes without relying on foreign governments or international organisations. Yet international mediation is not necessarily an infringement on national sovereignty. Where domestic political trust has collapsed, impartial external facilitation can help establish guarantees that the opposing sides may be unable to secure independently.

Constitutional crisis remains unresolved

The confrontation over constitutional amendments, elections, institutional mandates and judicial independence reflects a broader breakdown in political trust. The dispute surrounding Baashe’s dismissal has reinforced concerns that political disagreements are increasingly being fought through state institutions rather than resolved through agreed constitutional procedures.

Ultimately, the President’s initiative will be judged not by his willingness to meet opposition figures, but by whether he accepts that the country’s constitutional and electoral future cannot be determined by one political camp.

A credible settlement requires the fundamental issues to remain open to discussion, meaningful compromise and a binding agreement. Political opposition is not a crime, and peaceful dissent is not a threat to national security. Somalia needs constitutional government based on consent, an independent judiciary capable of holding the executive to account, and clear limits on presidential power—not political arrangements imposed by presidential authority.

WardheerNews