Somalia’s Constitutional Dispute Deepens as Government Moves to Bar MPs from Cabinet

Mogadishu (WDN) — Somalia’s government is moving to end the long-standing practice of allowing members of parliament to serve simultaneously as ministers—a move critics say exposes President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s growing disregard for the country’s agreed constitutional framework.

The change effectively overturns a provision of the 2012 Provisional Federal Constitution (PFCS), which established Somalia as a parliamentary system and explicitly allowed members of parliament to serve in the Council of Ministers.

Under Article 97 of the 2012 PFCS, a member of parliament could be appointed as a minister. That provision has now been removed under the constitutional changes being implemented by the government.

The office of the Chairperson of the Independent Constitutional Review and Implementation Commission, Burhan Aden Omar, has notified members of the Council of Ministers who also serve as MPs that they must choose between the two positions.

According to the notification, the six-month transition period began on 14 April 2026 and ends on 14 October 2026. Under the new arrangement, a minister who is also an MP must relinquish one of the positions. Likewise, an MP who accepts another government position would lose parliamentary membership.

The committee says the change is intended to establish a clearer separation between the legislative and executive branches and strengthen institutional accountability. But that explanation leaves a much larger constitutional question unanswered:

Who authorized the replacement of an agreed constitutional provision with a new rule that fundamentally changes the relationship between Parliament and the executive?

The 2012 Constitution vs. Hassan Sheikh’s Constitutional Project

The controversy goes beyond whether MPs should be allowed to serve as ministers. The 2012 PFCS was the product of a broad political process and remains the constitutional reference point around which Somalia’s federal institutions were established.

Its parliamentary framework was designed to allow political leaders to move between Parliament and the executive without automatically losing their parliamentary mandate.

Critics argue that President Hassan Sheikh’s administration is instead relying on a new constitutional framework that has not achieved the same level of political consensus as the 2012 settlement.

They contend that the Constitutional Review and Implementation Commission is now treating provisions from that contested framework as though they had already acquired unquestioned national legitimacy. That, they argue, is precisely where the constitutional dispute becomes political.

A constitution cannot derive its legitimacy simply from the institution responsible for drafting or implementing it. Its authority depends on political consensus, proper procedure and acceptance by the country’s principal stakeholders.

The government, however, has presented the constitutional changes as part of a broader effort to complete Somalia’s constitutional review process and clarify the separation of powers.

A Fundamental Parliamentary Question

The immediate consequence is straightforward. Once the transition period expires on October 14, a minister who wishes to remain in the cabinet will reportedly have to give up his or her parliamentary seat. An MP who accepts a ministerial or other government position could likewise lose parliamentary membership.

That represents a significant departure from the constitutional practice established under the 2012 PFCS. It also raises questions about the nature of Somalia’s parliamentary system.

In a parliamentary system, the relationship between the legislature and executive is fundamentally different from that of a presidential system. Ministers are often drawn from parliament precisely because the government depends on legislative political support.

The 2012 Somali constitutional framework reflected that principle by permitting MPs to serve in the cabinet. The new restriction therefore does more than separate two offices. It changes the political architecture through which Parliament and the executive interact.

Constitution or Constitutional Politics?

The controversy comes at an especially sensitive moment, with Somalia already deeply divided over constitutional amendments, elections and the country’s political transition.

Opponents of the government’s approach argue that President Hassan Sheikh cannot simply replace provisions of the 2012 PFCS through a constitutional process that lacks broad political agreement and then demand that federal member states and opposition forces treat the resulting document as universally binding.

Their concern is not merely about ministers retaining parliamentary seats. It is about who has the constitutional authority to redefine the country’s system of government—and under what political mandate.

The government maintains that the constitutional review process is legitimate and that the new provisions should be implemented once duly adopted. But the central political dispute remains unresolved.

If Somalia’s constitutional order was built on consensus, then constitutional change without consensus risks becoming an instrument of political power rather than a foundation for political stability. That is why the dispute over MPs serving as ministers matters far beyond the composition of the cabinet.

It goes to the heart of Somalia’s unfinished constitutional settlement—and to the increasingly contentious question of whether the country’s political institutions are being governed by an agreed national constitution or by a constitutional project driven primarily by the incumbent administration.

WardheerNews