Mogadishu (Somalia Today) – EU Ambassador Francesca Di Mauro’s decision to refer to Hassan Sheikh Mohamud without his presidential title has raised questions over diplomatic protocol at a sensitive moment in Somalia’s political crisis.
The wording came in a post in which Di Mauro said she had been briefed by Hassan Sheikh on recent political talks and had also spoken to Puntland President Said Abdullahi Deni.
She said both sides remained open to dialogue and added that Somalis would decide their political settlement.
The message was framed as support for dialogue. But the omission of Hassan Sheikh’s title was striking because it came amid an escalating dispute over the president’s mandate, electoral reforms and Somalia’s federal political order.
It also came from an ambassador based in Mogadishu, operating under diplomatic arrangements with the Somali state and engaging the federal government at Villa Somalia.
Protocol matters
Diplomatic language is rarely accidental.
Titles carry political and constitutional weight, especially in fragile states where foreign statements are closely read for signals of recognition, pressure or neutrality.
Hassan Sheikh and Deni are not equal in constitutional rank. Hassan Sheikh remains the head of the Federal Government of Somalia, controls the federal institutions in Mogadishu and represents the country internationally.
Deni is the president of Puntland, a federal member state, and a major political stakeholder in the current dispute.
That distinction matters because neutrality does not require false equivalence. A foreign diplomat can encourage talks with Puntland and other opposition figures without blurring the hierarchy of Somalia’s state institutions.
The title “President” is not a personal favour to Hassan Sheikh. It is recognition of the federal office through which Somalia conducts its domestic and international affairs.
An ambassador accredited to Somalia does not engage Villa Somalia as one faction among many. She engages it as the seat of the federal presidency and the authority through which diplomatic relations are maintained.
Legal and effective authority
Hassan Sheikh’s status rests on both legal authority and effective control.
Somalia’s parliament approved constitutional changes that extended the mandates of federal institutions from 4 to 5 years. Under that framework, the current federal term runs until 2027.
That makes Hassan Sheikh the president under the legal order approved by the country’s bicameral legislature.
Opposition figures may reject that position. Puntland may dispute it. Political actors may challenge it.
But it is not for a foreign ambassador to decide the legality of Somalia’s constitutional process through the wording of a social media post.
That question belongs to Somalis and Somali institutions, not to an external diplomat accredited to the very state whose president she appears to downgrade.
Hassan Sheikh also continues to exercise authority from Villa Somalia. He chairs the federal government, receives ambassadors, commands federal institutions and represents Somalia in international forums.
He is therefore president by law, through the constitutional changes approved by parliament, and by effective control, through his continued command of the federal state.
That reality should be reflected in diplomatic language.
A notable shift
The issue is more pointed because Di Mauro has used the title before.
In a February post, she welcomed political talks that she said had started at a lunch “hosted by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.” She then separately tagged Deni, Jubaland President Ahmed Madobe and former president Sharif Sheikh Ahmed as participants.
That wording showed a clear understanding of protocol. Hassan Sheikh was presented as the federal president hosting the talks, while other political figures were treated as attendees.
Her later decision to drop the title, therefore, cannot easily be dismissed as a casual social media choice.
It appeared after the mandate dispute had become more politically charged. That timing gives the wording a significance it might not otherwise have carried.
The EU may be trying to avoid appearing to endorse one side in Somalia’s internal political argument. That is understandable. Foreign diplomats should not decide Somalia’s political future.
But that same principle also means they should avoid language that appears to downgrade the office of the presidency.
Diplomatic consistency
There is a practical contradiction in the wording.
Di Mauro works in Mogadishu. She meets federal officials. She engages Villa Somalia. Her mission functions because the Somali state, headed by Hassan Sheikh, grants the diplomatic space in which the EU operates.
If the EU recognises the federal government enough to work with it, negotiate with it and operate through it, its ambassador should respect the office through which that government is represented.
This does not mean the EU must support Hassan Sheikh politically. It does not mean Brussels must accept every political position advanced by Villa Somalia.
It means diplomatic engagement must remain coherent.
States routinely deal with leaders whose legitimacy is contested because they exercise effective control over state institutions. Engagement does not always equal endorsement. But it does require consistency.
An ambassador cannot rely on a government for diplomatic access while publicly reducing its head of state to one side in a factional dispute.
Need for clarification
Villa Somalia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should treat the issue as a matter of protocol, not as a public confrontation.
The appropriate first step would be to seek a formal clarification from the EU delegation on whether the omission was accidental, a casual social media formulation or a deliberate diplomatic shift.
That clarification matters because the ambassador’s earlier wording recognised Hassan Sheikh as president, while the later post avoided the title at a politically sensitive moment.
The foreign ministry should also remind diplomatic missions that engagement with Somali political stakeholders must respect the constitutional hierarchy of the state.
It should make clear that foreign missions accredited to Somalia are expected to distinguish between the federal presidency and regional or opposition actors.
If the omission was accidental, the matter can be settled through clarification. If it was deliberate, Mogadishu would be justified in asking the EU to explain the basis of that shift.
Such a response would be measured, institutional and consistent with diplomatic practice.
It would also avoid turning the issue into a personal dispute with the ambassador while defending the status of the Somali presidency.
The EU has every right to encourage dialogue, inclusion and a democratic settlement. But it should do so without weakening Somalia’s constitutional protocol.
Somalia does not need foreign diplomats to choose its leaders.
It also does not need them to blur the offices through which its state is recognised.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Somalia Today.
