Somalia’s Constitutional Crisis Deepens with Senior Security Officials Entering Political Negotiations

Questions over the Constitution, electoral arrangements and the political neutrality of the national army remain unresolved despite reported agreement between government officials and opposition leaders.

MOGADISHU, Somalia (WDN) – Senior officials of Somalia’s Federal Government and representatives of the opposition-aligned Future Council reportedly reached an understanding on security, elections and rebuilding political trust following a meeting in Mogadishu on Wednesday evening. However, the reported agreement raises fundamental questions about the country’s constitutional direction, the electoral model and the growing involvement of security institutions in political negotiations.

According to reports, the two sides agreed that national security institutions should not be used as instruments in political disputes. They also pledged to cooperate in the fight against Al-Shabaab and Islamic State militants.

On elections, the participants reportedly agreed that the next electoral process should be based on an inclusive political settlement rather than decisions imposed unilaterally by one side.

The government delegation included National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) Director Mahad Mohamed Salad, Police Commissioner General Asad Abdullahi Osman, Somali National Army Commander General Ibrahim Mohamed and Armed Forces Court Chairman Colonel Hassan Ali Nur, widely known as Shuute.

The Future Council was represented by former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, former Prime Ministers Hassan Ali Khaire and Mohamed Hussein Roble, opposition politician Abdirahman Abdishakur Warsame, Abdullahi Arab and Mohamed Aden Koofi.

The discussions also focused on restoring political confidence and creating conditions for further negotiations on issues affecting Somalia’s national future.

Security institutions at the centre of a political dispute

The composition of the government delegation is particularly significant. The participation of the intelligence chief, police commissioner, national army commander and chairman of the military court places the country’s principal security and military institutions directly within a political negotiation process.

This raises an important question: if the national army and security agencies are to remain above political disputes, why are their senior commanders participating in negotiations whose central issues concern constitutional authority, elections and the distribution of political power?

The reported commitment not to politicise national security is welcome. But such assurances must be translated into institutional safeguards. The national army belongs to the Somali people, not to an incumbent president, political party or administration. Its constitutional responsibility is to defend the country and its citizens, not to enforce a disputed electoral timetable or secure the political survival of any government.

The Constitution and electoral model remain unresolved

More fundamentally, the reported understanding does not appear to resolve the central disagreement over Somalia’s constitutional framework and the electoral system.

What constitutional provisions will govern the next elections? Will the process follow an agreed framework negotiated between the Federal Government and Federal Member States, or will the administration proceed with its preferred electoral arrangements despite objections from political stakeholders?

An election cannot acquire national legitimacy simply because a government institution announces a timetable or establishes an electoral commission. Its credibility depends on constitutional clarity, political consensus and the participation of all relevant stakeholders.

The insistence that elections must be based on an inclusive political agreement is therefore an important acknowledgment that no single political actor can legitimately determine the country’s electoral future.

Somalia cannot afford another election conducted under disputed constitutional arrangements, particularly when confidence between the Federal Government, opposition groups and Federal Member States remains severely strained.

An understanding is not yet a political settlement

The meeting comes amid continuing efforts to resolve disagreements between the government and opposition over the electoral process and Somalia’s political future.

While the reported agreement may provide an opening for further dialogue, it should not be mistaken for a comprehensive political settlement. The real test will be whether the parties can agree on constitutional rules, an acceptable electoral model and enforceable guarantees that state institutions will remain politically neutral.

Without such an agreement, commitments to rebuild trust risk becoming another diplomatic exercise that postpones rather than resolves the country’s constitutional crisis.

Somalia needs more than assurances exchanged behind closed doors. It needs a transparent, constitutionally grounded political settlement that prevents the abuse of state institutions, protects the neutrality of the armed forces and restores public confidence in the electoral process.

WardheerNews