By Abdullahi A. Nor
Mogadishu did not sleep
What began as a political meeting inside the heavily fortified Halane compound escalated into a dramatic standoff that has exposed the depth of Somalia’s political crisis — and sharpened accusations that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is governing less like a constitutional head of state and more like a political tactician wielding the machinery of the state to contain rivals.
Security forces blocked senior opposition leaders from entering and exiting Halane, a diplomatic and political hub in Mogadishu that houses UN offices, embassies, and high-level political meetings. The incident was not about access to a compound. It was about access to power — and who controls it.
Former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and former Prime Minister Mohamed Hussein Roble were reportedly denied entry as they attempted to attend scheduled discussions. According to reports, former Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire was also prevented from leaving Xalane.
The oppositions leaders planned to meet with Said Abdullahi Deni and Ahmed Mohamed Islam Madobe — two federal member state leaders whose alignment with opposition figures has increasingly unsettled Villa Somalia.
In a blistering statement, Maxamed Aadan (Koofi), Secretary General of the Mustaqbal Council, accused the presidency of intimidation and political coercion. “Closing roads, turning back airplanes, obstructing leaders, cutting electricity, and even shutting down toilets are not acts of governance,” Koofi said. “These are acts of desperation. A confident government does not fear meetings. Only a weak one does.”
Despite the heightened tensions, security teams of the affected leaders reportedly exercised restraint, avoiding escalation. But politically, the damage had already been done.
Apologies at Night, Blockades by Morning
In what critics describe as a striking display of internal disarray, Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre had visited some of the same opposition leaders the previous evening, offering reassurances and signaling openness to dialogue. Yet within hours, access restrictions reappeared.
A senior opposition figure, described the sequence as “a government that says one thing at night and does the opposite at dawn.”
“If the Prime Minister apologizes, but the security forces continue blocking leaders the next day, then who is in charge?” the figure asked. “Is this a government of institutions, or a government of moods?”
That question is now echoing across political circles in Mogadishu.
Who Controls the Security Forces?
The standoff has reignited a fundamental concern: operational control of the Federal Government’s security apparatus.
Opposition leaders argue that the security forces are being deployed selectively — not for national security, but for political containment. “Security forces are meant to fight Al-Shabaab,” one opposition parliamentarian said. “They are not meant to prevent political meetings between Somali leaders.”
The perception that security institutions are being politicized is particularly dangerous in a country still rebuilding its national army and police after decades of collapse.
A Fragile State Under Chapter VII
Somalia remains under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter — a designation reflecting its ongoing fragility and the international community’s continued role in stabilizing the country. Security operations rely heavily on external support. A significant portion of the federal budget estimated between 70 and 80 percent is funded by international partners.
In such a context, political stability is not optional; it is foundational.
A Mogadishu-based analyst put it bluntly:
“You cannot run a state under Chapter VII like a private political enterprise. The international community supports Somalia because it believes in institution-building, not personality rule.”
What the African Union said
During meetings of the African Union Peace and Security Council held in Addis Ababa on 12 February 2026, the AU addressed the political situation in Somalia and made several points:
1) Call for dialogue between the government and opposition
- The Council urged engagement with opposition parties and other key stakeholders to build consensus on national priorities.
- It emphasized the need for regular and structured dialogue between the Federal Government and Federal Member States, including Puntland and Jubaland, which have been at odds with Mogadishu.
2)Warning that political divisions undermine stabilization
- The AU stressed that divisions in governance complicate stabilization efforts and called for unity, mutual trust, and cooperation at federal and regional levels.
3)Broader message at AU summit meetings
- AU leadership also emphasized that Somalia’s stability and security gains must be safeguarded and called for strong leadership and unity in resolving crises.
These statements were made on the margins of preparations for the 39th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union, which opened in Addis Ababa in February11-15, 2026.
What this means politically
In practical terms, the AU’s language is diplomatic but significant:
1) It signals concern about internal political rifts between Mogadishu, federal member states, and opposition leaders.
2) It indirectly acknowledges that lack of consensus and dialogue is now seen as a security issue, not just a political disagreement.
3) It reflects international pressure for negotiations rather than unilateral decisions, especially as Somalia transitions politically and militarily.
A Pattern of Confrontation
Xalane incident fits a broader pattern:
1) Centralization of decision-making
2) Marginalization of federal member states
3) unilateral constitutional maneuvers
4) shrinking political space for opposition
Federal–state relations remain strained. Electoral processes are contested. Constitutional reforms lack consensus. And yet, instead of widening consultation, opponents say the presidency appears to be narrowing it.
“A president must act as a unifier,” said one former cabinet minister.
“But when every political disagreement becomes a security operation, you are no longer leading — you are reacting.”
Governance by Impulse?
Several Somali commentators have described what they see as inconsistency at the highest levels of leadership. One opposition lawmaker remarked: “We wake up to one policy in the morning and another in the evening. That is not stability. That is unpredictability.”
For a country battling insurgency, economic fragility, and unresolved constitutional questions, unpredictability at the top carries consequences.
Investors hesitate. Donors worry. Federal states harden their positions.
The Federal Rift Deepens
When leaders from Puntland and Jubaland meet opposition figures in Mogadishu, it signals potential realignment in national politics. Blocking those meetings sends the opposite signal: confrontation over consultation.
Political insiders warn that continued escalation could push federal member states further from Mogadishu — deepening fragmentation at a time when unity is essential. “Somalia cannot afford another cycle of division,” said a former diplomat.
“We rebuilt this state from ashes. We should not gamble with it.”
A Defining Moment
The events in Halane may appear procedural — access denied, meetings delayed — but they represent something larger: a test of whether Somalia’s leadership is committed to institutional governance or increasingly reliant on executive muscle.
The Somali people have endured decades of collapse, conflict, and reconstruction. Billions of dollars in international assistance have aimed to restore a functioning state.
Now, many fear that progress risks being undone not by insurgents alone, but by political miscalculation.
As one civil society leader observed:
“History will not remember who blocked whom at a gate.
It will remember whether leaders strengthened institutions — or weakened them.”
For Somalia, still navigating its fragile recovery, the line between firmness and overreach is thin. And in Mogadishu tonight, that line appears increasingly blurred.
Abdullahi A. Nor
Email: abdulahinor231@gmail.com