Mogadishu (Somalia Today) — Former Somali president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed “Farmaajo” warned on Monday that Somalia is sliding toward a “constitutional void,” urging leaders to anchor any election process in the 2012 provisional constitution and to defuse a fast-hardening political standoff over the 2026 polls.
In a statement issued by his communications office, Farmaajo framed the moment as a familiar Somali pattern: elite bargaining that sidelines institutions, strains security forces and leaves citizens feeling unprotected by law.
“Today, I am concerned that the Somali people are again being pushed into a political impasse,” he said, warning that the country’s “constitutional institutions” are being undermined.
His intervention comes days after opposition politicians and regional figures concluded a consultative meeting in Kismayo and issued a communiqué calling on President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to convene an inclusive forum within a month, setting Jan. 20, 2026, as a deadline to agree on an election framework.
Constitutional drift
At the core of Farmaajo’s statement is a legitimacy argument: Somalia cannot manage another transition by improvisation, he said, and the only durable reference point remains the 2012 Provisional Constitution.
He warned against “shortcuts” that replace constitutional procedure with political deals and described the resulting uncertainty as a direct threat to national cohesion.
“The provisional constitution agreed by the Somali people in 2012 remains the only binding framework,” Farmaajo said, urging leaders to resolve disputes “through law and consensus” rather than unilateral decisions.
While he did not name officials, he criticised recurring attempts to “reconfigure” Somalia’s political order through arrangements that, he said, weaken constitutional checks and leave the public without a clear, enforceable rulebook.
The warning carries weight because Somalia has absorbed this kind of shock before. In April 2021, a disputed mandate extension pushed by Farmaajo and his allies sent Mogadishu toward confrontation and deepened splits inside the security sector.
That episode did not only expose political divisions. It also showed how quickly institutional uncertainty can spill into the capital’s security landscape, with armed units drawn into political contestation and public confidence shaken.
Kismayo ultimatum
In Kismayo, opposition-aligned leaders and prominent political figures argued that Somalia is already edging toward a constitutional vacuum, warning that failure to convene talks could trigger “parallel” political steps.
Their statement rejected term extensions and pressed for a rapid, inclusive agreement on the election roadmap.
The communiqué also challenged Mogadishu’s planned Banadir local council vote, citing unresolved disputes over the capital’s status within the federal architecture.
That Banadir question is more than technical. Mogadishu is the seat of federal power, but its governance status remains politically sensitive, and disagreements over who holds authority there have repeatedly surfaced whenever Somalia debates elections, representation and constitutional design.
Farmaajo’s language does not formally align him with the Kismayo bloc, but his argument intersects with its central claim: that the process is now the battleground, and legitimacy will depend on whether Somalia’s actors recognise one roadmap under one constitutional framework.
Security pressure
Farmaajo linked constitutional order to battlefield realities, arguing that political rifts erode security discipline and create openings for al-Shabaab.
He warned that when leaders turn the state inward—toward manoeuvre and patronage—Somalia “loses focus” on the insurgency and exposes civilians to greater risk.
That linkage is a recurring theme in Somalia’s election disputes. The Crisis Group has warned that unresolved disputes over election rules can become a destabilising force in their own right, with security consequences in a country already under sustained militant pressure.
The government, for its part, has defended electoral reform as a long-delayed step toward citizen-based participation, arguing that Somalia cannot remain locked in an indirect model indefinitely.
In 2024, Somalia’s cabinet approved legislation to restore universal suffrage.
Officials and supporters of the reforms argue that a clearer electoral calendar and broader participation will strengthen state legitimacy over time.
Critics counter that sequencing matters, and that contested constitutional changes can deepen distrust if key stakeholders feel excluded from the rule-setting stage.
What he is asking for
Farmaajo’s statement lays out a simple demand: Somali leaders should pull the dispute back inside the constitutional frame and negotiate a credible election pathway before timelines harden into confrontation.
He urged federal and regional leaders to “come together” and avoid any step—explicit or indirect—that extends mandates without a constitutionally grounded agreement.
He also called on political stakeholders and international partners to prioritise consensus-building over tactical advantage, warning that Somalia’s institutions weaken when rules appear selective or negotiable.
In Somalia’s recent history, election crises have not stayed confined to meeting rooms. They have fuelled distrust between federal and regional authorities and, at their worst, pulled armed units into political quarrels in the capital.
Farmaajo’s broader message is that Somalia cannot afford another cycle of legal ambiguity. “The Somali people,” he said, should not be “pushed” into impasse again.
For now, the political calendar is tightening. Opposition figures have put a public deadline on talks, while the government continues to advance its reform agenda and election preparations.
Whether Somalia avoids the “constitutional void” Farmaajo warns of may depend on whether rival camps can agree not only on an election date, but on a process that all major stakeholders accept as lawful, enforceable and fair.
If the parties do not close the gap soon, the former president warns, Somalia risks returning to the familiar danger zone where elections become a struggle over mandates—and where disputes over rules harden into competing claims of authority.
