Somalia’s Prime Minister Dismisses Two Ministers Despite Expired Mandate and Disputed Constitutional Authority

Hamza Abdi Barre invokes controversial constitutional provisions to justify the dismissal of two cabinet officials, even as questions over his own mandate and the legal legitimacy of the Constitution remain unresolved. His office offers no explanation for why the two officials were removed.

Mogadishu (WDN) – Somalia’s Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre has dismissed two members of the federal cabinet in another controversial exercise of executive authority, raising fresh questions about the legal basis of his decisions and the legitimacy of the government he continues to lead.

The officials removed on November 4, 2026, are Said Mohamed Mahmoud, Minister of State for Public Works, Reconstruction and Housing, and Fartuun Abdiqadir Farah, Deputy Minister of Ports and Marine Transport.

In announcing the dismissals, the Prime Minister’s Office claimed that the decision was consistent with the Federal Republic of Somalia’s Constitution, specifically Articles 117 and 120, as well as the internal regulations of the Council of Ministers and other national laws.

The statement invoked transparency, accountability and good governance as the principles underpinning the decision. However, it conspicuously failed to explain what either official had done to warrant dismissal. It also provided no information about their replacements.

The absence of any explanation is particularly troubling. Government officials appointed to public office should be held accountable, but accountability cannot become a convenient slogan used to justify arbitrary decisions. The public deserves to know whether the dismissals were based on misconduct, poor performance, administrative disagreements or political considerations. The Prime Minister offered none of these explanations.

More fundamentally, Hamza’s invocation of constitutional authority raises an even bigger legal and political question: what constitutional mandate is he relying upon to exercise these powers?

His own mandate expired on May 15, 2026, yet he continues to exercise the powers of prime minister months after that date, amid an unresolved national dispute over the legitimacy of the federal government’s political and constitutional arrangements.

Even more contentious is his reliance on the amended Constitution, whose adoption remains fiercely disputed by opposition leaders and several Federal Member States. Critics argue that the amendments were pushed through without the necessary political consensus and constitutional legitimacy. Consequently, invoking provisions of that contested document does not, by itself, resolve questions about their legal validity or the authority of officials relying upon them.

This leaves Somalia facing an increasingly troubling contradiction: a prime minister whose mandate is disputed is invoking a contested constitutional framework to make decisions affecting the composition of the federal government, without even explaining the reasons behind those decisions.

The issue goes beyond the removal of two cabinet officials. It concerns the credibility of state institutions, the limits of executive authority and whether Somalia is moving towards a system in which constitutional provisions are selectively invoked to legitimise political decisions rather than protect the rule of law.

At a time when Somalia desperately needs political consensus, institutional stability and respect for constitutional procedures, unexplained dismissals and disputed claims of authority only deepen public frustration.

A government cannot credibly preach transparency and accountability while refusing to explain its own decisions. Nor can it claim unquestionable constitutional authority when the very Constitution it invokes remains at the centre of a national political and legal dispute.

WardheerNews