Outrage and Widespread Condemnation Over the Detention of a Disabled Father of Seven

Mogadishu (WDN)– The imprisonment of a disabled father of seven has sparked widespread public outrage and fierce condemnation, with many describing the move as a shocking abuse of power and a grave violation of human dignity. Targeting a vulnerable man struggling to support a large family reflects an alarming pattern of repression and disregard for basic rights and freedoms. The case has ignited anger across communities and on social media, where citizens, activists, and opposition voices are demanding his immediate release and accountability for those responsible. Many warn that such actions not only deepen public mistrust but also further inflame the already tense political climate.

Among those who spoke out on the case is former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire, who issued a strongly worded statement condemning the detention of a disabled man allegedly imprisoned solely for exercising his freedom of expression and publicly speaking out against the demolition of his home. Khaire described the incident as deeply troubling and warned that silencing vulnerable citizens for voicing their grievances represents a dangerous assault on justice, civil liberties, and human rights.

The case has sparked fresh controversy over allegations of heavy-handed tactics by government authorities, with critics accusing the administration of targeting vulnerable citizens for speaking out against official actions. In a statement released on social media, Khaire described the detention of Issa Ali Farey, a disabled father struggling to support seven children and their mother—who is also reported to have special needs—as a disturbing example of abuse, intimidation, and injustice.

According to Khaire, Issa Ali Farey has been held for more than 48 hours without due legal process after publicly criticizing the demolition and displacement linked to his home in the Calasow Dheere area of Mogadishu’s Shibis District. The former prime minister alleged that the detention was not related to any criminal offense but was instead intended to silence a citizen who dared to speak publicly about what he viewed as the unlawful seizure and destruction of his property.