By Hon; Abdirashid Jire Qalinle

A Deep Dive into Power Abuse, Corruption, and the Need for Urgent Reform

Does the House of the People have Whips? The answer seems foolproof. Our MPs weren’t elected by the people through political parties but were handpicked by clan elders. As a result, our Parliament cannot have a whip in the traditional sense. Instead, we have an Organizer (Nidaamiye) whose job is limited to maintaining order in the House during debates. Unlike parliamentary whips in other countries, the Nidaamiye doesn’t represent a party and wields no power over MPs.

But what happens when the Nidaamiye overreaches? What if this modest administrative role is transformed into a position of unchecked power? To understand the contrast between Somalia’s Nidaamiye and parliamentary whips in other democracies, let’s first examine how whips function in established systems like the UK and all other Parliaments.

Whips – Introduction

Whips are politicians appointed by each party to ensure MPs toe the line and maintain discipline in the legislature. According to the UK Parliament website, they “help organize their party’s contribution to parliamentary business.”

The primary responsibility of a party whip is to ensure the maximum number of their party members vote—and, more importantly, vote the way their party wants. Each party appoints a team of MPs as whips, with larger parties such as the Conservatives and Labour typically appointing around 14 whips each. Smaller parties have fewer, sometimes only two or three. The House of Lords also has a small team of whips, who operate separately.

What Do Whips Do?

Whips are tasked with keeping party members disciplined and voting in line with party decisions. They act as tellers during votes, manage the pairing system (where members of opposing parties agree not to vote due to other commitments), and help arrange parliamentary business in coordination with the Leader of the House.

A weekly circular called “The Whip” informs party members about upcoming parliamentary business, with important votes underlined once, twice, or—at the highest priority level—three times. Defying a three-line whip is a serious offense and can result in an MP being expelled from their party and forced to sit as an independent.

The Nidaamiye: A Unique Somali Role

Unlike other parliaments in the world, in Somalia parliament, there are no political whips because the House of the People is not built on a party system but on clan representation. In Somalia’s parliamentary setup, the Nidaamiye serves as a neutral referee tasked with maintaining order and ensuring decorum during parliamentary sessions. Unlike parliamentary whips in other systems, the Nidaamiye has no political authority, does not represent a party, and is limited to intervening only when there is disorder. Crucially, the Nidaamiye must always sit with the MPs on the floor of the House, not under the Speaker’s site, a deliberate arrangement designed to uphold his neutrality and accessible during proceedings.

Under the learned speakership of the late Hon. Prof. Mohamed Osman Jawari and Hon. Mursal Sheikh Abdirahman, the Nidaamiye worked strictly within his Terms of Reference (TOR). His role was clear, and he never overstepped his authority. The House functioned with order and professionalism, thanks to experienced leadership and the presence of a competent Secretary-General who ensured that parliamentary processes were followed to the letter.

A Dangerous Shift in the Current Parliament

Unfortunately, the current leadership of Parliament 11 lacks the education, experience, and technical expertise of their predecessors. To make matters worse, there is no learned Secretary-General to provide proper direction or advice. This vacuum has created an opportunity for the Nidaamiye, who, sensing the absence of oversight, has dramatically expanded his role.

The Nidaamiye, who shares similar qualifications—or lack thereof—with the parliamentary leadership, has gone from being a neutral arbiter to becoming an enforcer and political tool. From out of the blue, he morphed into a monitor, transforming into the eyes and ears of the leadership. Operating with unchecked power, he now interferes in parliamentary affairs, selectively influencing debates and silencing dissenting voices.

Once a humble procedural officer, he is now actively involved in political maneuvering, making him a key player in the House’s daily operations. His transformation has raised serious concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the parliamentary process.

The consequences are troubling. What was once a fair and balanced parliamentary environment is now vulnerable to manipulation and partisan control. The independence of MPs is increasingly compromised, and the once-respected Nidaamiye has become a symbol of opportunism rather than impartiality.

Most MPs mockingly refer to the current sitting parliament as the “Ministry of It’s Approved.” According to this satirical analogy, the Speaker is seen as the “Minister,” the First Deputy as the “State Minister,” and the Second Deputy as the “Deputy Minister.” The Parliament’s Nidaamiye is jokingly called the “Director General,” while the Standing Committee members are labeled as “Directors.” This reflects widespread criticism of how quickly and unquestioningly the parliament approves legislation and agreements without proper scrutiny or debate.

If left unchecked, this abuse of power could permanently undermine the credibility of the House of the People, transforming it from a platform of democracy into a tool for political dominance by a select few.

For instance, the last parliamentary session, held on November 27, 2024, began and ended in chaos and physical confrontation. The disorder erupted when 30 MPs, including myself, representing constituencies from Jubbaland, attempted to present a report on the situation in our respective regions. However, due to the ongoing conflict between the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) and Jubbaland, the Speaker denied us the opportunity to deliver our report in parliament.

According to the parliamentary rules of procedure, any session that descends into chaos must be adjourned. Despite this, the election committee commissioners were hastily approved during the chaotic session and sworn in immediately, violating the established procedures.

Illegal Privileges and Backroom Deals

Reports from the Ministry of Finance suggest that the Nidaamiye receives illegal allowances on top of his official salary. While committee chairs—essential to parliamentary oversight—get paid only their salaries. The Nidaamiye, according to sources in the secretariat of the parliament, enjoys illicit housing allowance, fuel benefits, and discretionary funds that he uses to curry favor with influential MPs.

Hon. Hassan A Ismail (Firimbi), a senior MP, expressed his frustration: ” We are here to represent the people, not to play along with power games. The Nidaamiye is acting like a party whip, but we have no parties here! He has no authority to tell us how to vote or to interfere in committee work.”

The Chief Whip’s growing influence is not just a matter of compensation; it’s about unchecked power. In one alarming case, the former Minister of Public Works, Hon. Ismail Sheikh Bashir was dismissed after attempting to crack down on corruption within his ministry. The Director-General (DG) of Public Works—dismissed for corruption—was quickly reinstated after the Nidaamiye, who shared clan ties with the DG, intervened. When the minister refused to comply, he found himself out of office within a week.

It’s a scenario that has become all too common. The Chief Whip, exploiting backdoor connections and his influence with the president and parliament’s leadership, has turned his office into a power hub, bypassing parliamentary norms and undermining accountability.

Manipulation of Rules and Procedures

The abuse of power in the House of the People extends beyond mere opportunism—it is deeply embedded in the House’s Rules of Procedure (ROP). Upon careful review, it becomes evident that the Nidaamiye enjoys protections far more favorable than those governing higher offices, including the Prime Minister.

According to Chapter 2: Article 11
The Nidaamiye and his Two Deputies

The Nidaamiye and his deputies must be members of the House. They are appointed not by a political party or members but by the Speaker of the House in consultation with the Deputy Speakers and subsequently confirmed by a simple majority vote of the members through a show of hands.

The House has the authority to remove them from office through a simple majority vote following a motion submitted by 25% of the members.

To rectify the ROP article 11, the Speaker shouldn’t be allowed to appoint the Nidaamiye. MPs who are interested should apply for the post and who ever wins the majority of the secret ballot of the members shall be declared as the winer – fair and just process.

Look how disgraceful the Nidaamiye abused the system:

• No-Confidence Motions: It takes 25% of MPs (69 members) Xeer-Hoosaadka-GSH-B11aad (1).pdf ( Chapter 2 Article 11)to table a no-confidence motion against the Nidaamiye. In contrast, only 1/5 (55 members) are required to initiate the same process against the Prime Minister. Xeer-Hoosaadka-GSH-B11aad (1).pdf  (Article 54 Paragraph 1). This higher threshold makes it significantly harder to hold the Nidaamiye accountable.
• Public Show of Hands: The process to approve or remove the Nidaamiye is conducted through a public show of hands, just like with the Prime Minister. This method stands out because it is the only instance of a public vote allowed in the constitution, see article 69 paragraphs D and E. Unlike secret ballots, a public vote exposes MPs to external pressure and manipulation, discouraging honest dissent.

These procedural loopholes have transformed the Nidaamiye into an untouchable figure in par with the Prime Minister, immune to the checks and balances typically expected in a parliamentary democracy. What was once a neutral role has evolved into a position of enormous influence and power, shielded by legal protections that surpass those of the nation’s highest political offices.

Hon. Abdulahi Mire, an outspoken opposition MP, highlighted the danger:
“These rules are designed to protect the Nidaamiye, not the House. No one wants to raise their hand in public and risk being targeted. We need secret ballots to ensure fair and honest votes.”

The abuse of the Nidaamiye’s office has sparked outrage among reform-minded MPs. Many have begun demanding a full overhaul of the Rules of Procedure and a return to the principles of transparency and fairness established under former Speakers like the late Prof. Mohamed Osman Jawari.

Hon. Dahir Amiin Jeesoow, a veteran MP, warned that failure to act could have dire consequences:
“This House is losing its credibility. If we don’t fix this now, we risk turning Parliament into a rubber-stamp institution controlled by a few powerful individuals.”

Recommendations for Reform

MPs and civil society leaders have proposed several key reforms:

1. Secret Ballots for Nidaamiye. Votes like all other votes – To protect MPs from intimidation and ensure genuine voting outcomes.
2. Lower the Threshold for No-Confidence Motions – Bring it in line with the standards of lower offices. 10 MPs
3. Eliminate Illegal Allowances – Ensure transparency in compensation and cut unauthorized benefits.
4. Review and Amend the Rules of Procedure – Restore fairness and draw lessons from previous leadership.

As Hon. Mohamed Ali omar (aananuug) bluntly put it:
“This is not a democracy; it’s becoming a dictatorship in disguise. The people of Somalia deserve better.”

The Way Forward

Somalia’s Lower House stands at a critical crossroads. Its current trajectory not only threatens the House’s credibility but also undermines the country’s fragile democratic progress. Without swift and decisive reforms, the Lower House risks becoming a symbol of everything wrong with Somali politics—unaccountable, corrupt, and increasingly detached from the people it was elected to serve.

For many MPs and observers, the question is no longer whether the system is broken but how long it will take to fix it. One thing is clear: without structural changes, this parliament’s legacy will be one of missed opportunities and deepened public mistrust in Somalia’s democratic institutions.

Competent, experienced leadership and strict adherence to parliamentary rules are more critical than ever. Restoring balance and integrity to Somalia’s institutions must start with reforming the role of the Nidaamiye, whose unchecked power has become emblematic of the dysfunction in the current parliamentary system.

The coming months will be a true test for Somalia’s democracy. Will the House of the People rise to the challenge and reclaim its integrity, or will it continue down a dangerous path of political manipulation and unchecked power? Time will tell—but the consequences of failure will be profound.

Hon; Abdirashid Jire Qalinle

Former State Minister of Planning, Investment and Economic Development (MoPIED)
Email: Khalinle@gmail.com

———–

Related articles:

Understanding the Speaker’s Role Amidst a Controversial Parliament By Ahmed A. Yusuf

Inside the FP leadership, corruption and scandal: the case of Speaker Adan Mohamed (Madobe)- part II By Abdullahi A Nor

Inside the Federal Parliament of Somalia leadership: The case of Sadia Yasin Samatar- Corruption, Scandal, and Bloodshed in Somali Politics By Abdullahi A. No