Eigen RadarGeopolitics
Archive
Analysis

Somalia’s attorney general rejects Supreme Court mandate ruling

Somalia’s attorney general rejected a Supreme Court ruling that the president’s and parliament’s mandates had expired, challenging the court’s procedure and promising further legal action. The November 6 response escalates a dispute over whether constitutional changes can extend current officeholders’ terms. Judges called for agreement on an electoral framework within 30 days and elections within 90 days.

Geopolitics··Midday
The exterior of the Supreme Court building in Mogadishu: a whitewashed building with a shaded colonnade, a closed metal gate and a white vehicle parked at the kerb.

The attorney general disputes the court’s procedure

Somalia’s Office of the Attorney General rejected a Supreme Court ruling on November 6 that had declared the president’s and federal parliament’s mandates expired. The office, which represents the government in legal disputes, said the judgment was legally flawed and promised further legal action. Its response followed a November 5 decision on a challenge brought by former president Sharif Sheikh Ahmed over constitutional amendments and their effect on the terms of federal institutions.[1], [2]

The attorney general argued that judges had not first resolved government objections about the court’s jurisdiction and Sharif’s standing to bring the case. It said those questions should have been determined before a hearing on the arguments. The office also challenged the composition of the judicial panel and accused the court of introducing an issue outside the original petition.[1]

The office cited Articles 69 and 88 of the Civil Procedure Code in its argument that both sides should have been heard after preliminary objections were decided. It also invoked Article 77 of that code and Article 24 of Law No. 23 of 2016 in disputing the scope of the judgment.[1]

Judges reject retroactive extensions of current mandates

The Supreme Court said constitutional changes extending terms from four to five years could not apply retrospectively to current officeholders. It placed the end of the parliamentary terms in April and the end of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s mandate in May. Judges called for political agreement on an electoral framework within 30 days and elections within 90 days. Kaab TV reported that the court allowed the administration to continue routine daily governance.[1], [2]

The government maintains that constitutional changes approved in March allow the current administration to remain until May 2027. Its timetable envisages parliamentary elections in April 2027 followed by a presidential election in May. The court rejected the part of Sharif’s petition challenging the amendment process itself on standing grounds, while accepting the challenge to extending the current institutions’ mandates.[1]

A dispute over the chief justice deepens the confrontation

The confrontation also involves the leadership of the judiciary. Mohamud announced the dismissal of Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed on November 4 and appointed Ibrahim Idle Suleiman in his place. The Supreme Court subsequently declared the removal invalid, arguing that the president lacked authority to dismiss the chief justice through the procedure used. The rival positions leave the government and judiciary at odds over both institutional mandates and judicial leadership.[1], [2]

References

  1. News sourceGoobjoogSomalia’s attorney general rejects ruling on government mandates↩1↩2↩3↩4↩5↩6
  2. News sourceKaab TVThe Office of the Attorney General of the State has Opposed the Supreme Court Decision: The Constitutional Conflict Continues to Intensify↩1↩2↩3
Russia-Ukraine war

More analysis from this desk

View all Brief analyses from the Geopolitics desk →