Judicial Independence Under Threat as Supreme Court Judges Take Dispute to Regional Court

A president whose mandate has been declared expired by the Supreme Court is facing an escalating legal confrontation with the country’s highest judicial authorities. The decision by seven Supreme Court judges to take their grievances to a regional court exposes the depth of Somalia’s institutional breakdown and raises fresh concerns about the country’s accelerating political disintegration.

MOGADISHU, Somalia (WDN) – Somalia’s constitutional crisis has entered a potentially unprecedented phase after Supreme Court Chairman Baashe Yusuf Ahmed and six fellow Supreme Court judges reportedly filed a case against President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud before the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), based in Arusha, Tanzania.

According to Somali Stream, the judges accuse President Hassan Sheikh of violating Somalia’s Constitution and undermining the independence of the judiciary. They reportedly allege that they have also faced intimidation and threats intended to influence the judiciary and compromise the personal security of judges.

The development represents a serious escalation in the confrontation between Villa Somalia and the country’s highest court. It also raises troubling questions about a presidency increasingly accused by its critics of exercising executive authority without effective constitutional restraint.

A presidency increasingly above institutional restraint

At the heart of the crisis is President Hassan Sheikh’s decision to remove Supreme Court Chairman Baashe Yusuf Ahmed, a move subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court itself.

Rather than resolving the dispute through constitutional and judicial procedures, the confrontation has developed into a wider institutional struggle over who has the ultimate authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution.

The allegations of intimidation, if substantiated, would represent an especially serious threat to judicial independence. A judiciary cannot perform its constitutional responsibilities if judges fear political retaliation for decisions that contradict the wishes of the executive.

The broader concern is that Somalia is increasingly being governed through unilateral political decisions rather than agreed constitutional rules. A president is not a monarch, and the presidency does not confer unlimited authority over independent institutions. The Constitution is intended to constrain executive power, not provide a licence to exercise it without accountability.

Supreme Court challenges the legitimacy of the current leadership

The regional court proceedings follow a landmark decision issued by Somalia’s Supreme Court on November 5, 2026.

According to the report, the Supreme Court declared that the mandates of the president, Federal Parliament and Federal Government had expired. It rejected the application of the constitutional extensions adopted by the incumbent institutions to their own terms of office.

The court further directed political leaders to reach agreement on an electoral framework within 30 days and stipulated that elections should take place within 90 days.

That ruling has intensified the confrontation between the presidency and the judiciary, transforming an already serious political disagreement into a direct constitutional battle over the legitimacy of the country’s governing institutions.

The implications are far-reaching. If the highest court’s determination is not respected, Somalia risks entering a period in which competing institutions claim constitutional authority without an agreed mechanism for resolving their differences.

Taking the constitutional dispute beyond Somalia

According to Somali Stream, the seven judges have asked the East African Court of Justice to apply the East African Community Treaty and relevant regional legal instruments to the allegations against the Somali president.

Their reported decision to seek regional judicial intervention reflects an attempt to move the dispute beyond Somalia’s increasingly paralysed domestic institutions.

The EACJ is responsible for interpreting and applying the East African Community Treaty. Should the court accept the case and proceed to a hearing, the dispute could acquire a significant regional legal and diplomatic dimension.

What began as a confrontation between the president and the Supreme Court now threatens to become an international test of Somalia’s commitment to constitutional government, judicial independence and the rule of law.

The danger of institutional disintegration

Somalia cannot afford a political system in which the president treats constitutional limitations as optional, Parliament becomes an instrument of executive interests, and the judiciary faces pressure whenever its decisions challenge those in power.

The danger extends well beyond the immediate dispute over the Supreme Court chairmanship. When constitutional institutions cease to recognise one another’s authority, the foundations of the federal state begin to weaken.

The country is already struggling with profound disagreements over elections, constitutional amendments, relations between the Federal Government and Federal Member States, and the legitimacy of the current political leadership. Allowing the conflict to escalate further could accelerate the fragmentation of an already fragile federation.

President Hassan Sheikh must recognise that political authority cannot be sustained through executive decrees, contested constitutional extensions or pressure on independent institutions. Legitimate government requires public confidence, constitutional compliance and respect for the separation of powers.

Somalia’s political future cannot depend on the personal preferences of one president or the willingness of state institutions to accommodate his political ambitions. Without a negotiated constitutional settlement and respect for judicial independence, the country risks moving ever closer to institutional paralysis and political disintegration.

The Federal Government has yet to issue an official response to the allegations or clarify its position on the reported proceedings before the East African Court of Justice.

WardheerNews