By Abdinoor Ibrahim Noor

Your Excellency,

I write to you today as both a scholar of conflict studies and a political analyst deeply invested in Somalia’s democratic trajectory. The current moment represents a critical inflection point where the decisions made by your administration will determine whether Somalia consolidates its hard-won stability or descends into renewed chaos that could undo decades of sacrifice and progress.

The interconnected crises of political violence, land disputes, and terrorist resurgence demand immediate attention and a fundamental reassessment of current policy approaches.

Understanding the Violence-Extremism Cycle in Post- Conflict States

My research on fragile state dynamics reveals that terrorism and political violence exist in a symbiotic relationship, each feeding off the other in ways that can rapidly destabilize entire regions. In Somalia’s case, this relationship manifests through what I term the “legitimacy deficit spiral”—where state actions perceived as unjust create popular grievances that extremist organizations exploit to justify their violent campaigns and expand their support base.

The forced evictions currently taking place across Mogadishu exemplify this dangerous dynamic. When security forces employ excessive force against civilians, particularly vulnerable populations like the elderly and families with children, they generate precisely the type of state-citizen antagonism that Al-Shabaab has historically leveraged for recruitment purposes. Each incident of police brutality becomes a propaganda victory for extremists who position themselves as defenders of the oppressed against an illegitimate government.

This phenomenon extends beyond immediate recruitment benefits. Violent state actions against civilians fundamentally alter the social fabric of affected communities, creating what I describe as “zones of alienation” where government authority is viewed with suspicion and hostility. In these areas, extremist organizations can more easily establish parallel governance structures, collect taxes, and recruit operatives without significant community resistance.

The timing of these evictions is particularly concerning given Al-Shabaab’s demonstrated resurgence throughout. Intelligence reports indicate the group has recaptured strategic territories within striking distance of Mogadishu and maintains the capability to conduct sophisticated urban attacks. By alienating urban populations through heavy- handed eviction tactics, the government risks creating the very conditions that would enable Al-Shabaab to rebuild its urban networks and resume the assassination campaigns that once terrorized the capital.

The Land Crisis as a National Security Threat

The current approach to land disputes in Mogadishu reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how property rights intersect with security concerns in post-conflict environments. Land ownership in societies emerging from prolonged conflict represents far more than economic assets—it embodies survival, dignity, and hope for the future. When governments handle these sensitive issues through force rather than legal processes, they signal to citizens that state power serves elite interests rather than public welfare.

My analysis of the current evictions reveals several alarming patterns that threaten long- term stability. First, the lack of transparency in land transactions creates perceptions of corruption that undermine public trust in government institutions. When citizens believe that well-connected businessmen can acquire valuable properties through political influence rather than legal processes, they lose faith in the rule of law and become susceptible to alternative governance models.

Second, the use of violence against property owners who possess legitimate documentation demonstrates a disregard for legal procedures that sets dangerous precedents. If the government can arbitrarily seize property from citizens who followed proper legal channels, what protection do any Somalis have against state overreach? This uncertainty creates anxiety throughout society and encourages people to seek protection from non-state actors, including extremist organizations.

Third, the humanitarian impact of forced evictions extends far beyond immediate displacement. Families torn from their homes experience trauma that can persist for generations, while children who witness state violence against their parents develop lasting mistrust of government authority. These psychological wounds create fertile ground for extremist recruitment, as organizations like Al-Shabaab offer alternative sources of identity and purpose to traumatized individuals.

The economic dimensions of the land crisis also pose significant security risks.  When thousands of families lose their homes and livelihoods simultaneously, they create a large population of desperate individuals who may turn to illegal activities for survival. This desperation can manifest in various forms of criminality that destabilize urban areas and create operational space for terrorist organizations to expand their activities.

Foreign Predators and Domestic Vulnerabilities

My research on international criminal networks reveals how foreign actors systematically exploit domestic instability to advance their own interests at the expense of Somali sovereignty. The current political crisis provides multiple entry points for such exploitation, ranging from arms trafficking and human smuggling to resource extraction and strategic influence operations.

Arms dealers and weapons traffickers thrive in environments where state security forces are distracted by domestic political conflicts rather than focused on border control and counter- trafficking efforts. The diversion of security resources toward eviction operations creates operational opportunities for these networks to expand their activities and establish new supply chains that can fuel further violence.

Human trafficking organizations similarly exploit political instability to establish transit routes through Somali territory. These networks generate substantial revenue streams that can be used to corrupt government officials, fund armed groups, and perpetuate the very instability that enables their operations. The current focus on domestic political enforcement rather than transnational crime prevention allows these networks to operate with relative impunity.

More sophisticated foreign actors, including regional powers and international business interests, often pursue what I call “managed instability strategies”—deliberate efforts to maintain low-level conflict that prevents Somalia from  developing effective governance while  creating opportunities for resource extraction and strategic influence. These actors may provide financial support to various factions in land disputes, not to resolve conflicts but to perpetuate them for their own benefit.

The opacity surrounding current land transactions creates ideal conditions for such foreign manipulation. Without transparent processes for property sales and development projects, international actors can acquire valuable Somali assets at below-market prices while contributing to the very instability that enables such acquisitions. This creates perverse incentives where foreign interests benefit from Somali fragility rather than stability.

The Unity Imperative in Federal Systems

Somalia’s federal structure represents an ambitious attempt to balance national unity with regional autonomy, but this delicate arrangement requires careful management to prevent fragmentation that extremist organizations can exploit. The current tensions between your administration and member states like Puntland and Jubaland create precisely the type of institutional weakness that Al-Shabaab has historically leveraged to expand its territorial control.

My analysis of federal systems in post-conflict environments reveals that successful power- sharing arrangements require what I term “cooperative federalism”—institutional mechanisms that enable different levels of government to coordinate effectively while respecting each other’s legitimate authorities. The current approach of unilateral decision- making on critical issues like electoral arrangements undermines these cooperative foundations and creates incentives for political actors to pursue extra-legal means of advancing their interests.

The relationship between political fragmentation and security deterioration operates through multiple channels. Divided political leadership creates coordination problems for security forces, reducing their effectiveness against terrorist threats. Political competition often leads to the militarization of civilian disputes, as various factions attempt to use security forces to advance their political objectives. Most dangerously, fragmented authority creates ungoverned spaces where terrorist organizations can establish safe havens and training facilities.

Recent developments indicate that Al-Shabaab has already begun exploiting these dynamics, establishing control over territories in regions where federal-state tensions have weakened government presence. The group’s offensive has specifically targeted areas where political disputes have reduced coordination between federal and regional security forces, demonstrating their sophisticated understanding of how political fragmentation creates operational opportunities.

A Framework for Sustainable Solutions

Your Excellency, addressing these interconnected challenges requires a comprehensive approach that recognizes the complex relationships between governance, security, and social stability. Based on my research and analysis, I propose the following framework for immediate and long-term action:

Crisis De-escalation Protocol: Implement an immediate suspension of all forced evictions pending the establishment of transparent, legally-grounded processes for resolving land disputes. Create an independent review commission that includes legal experts, civil society representatives, and affected community leaders to examine all contested cases and develop fair resolution mechanisms. Ensure that any future land transactions involve complete public disclosure of beneficiaries, financial arrangements, and decision-making processes.

National Reconciliation Process: Initiate an inclusive dialogue that brings together federal government representatives, member state leaders, opposition parties, and civil society organizations to address electoral arrangements and broader governance issues. This process should operate on consensus-building principles rather than majoritarian decision- making, recognizing that sustainable agreements require broad-based legitimacy. Establish clear timelines and benchmarks for progress while maintaining flexibility to accommodate legitimate concerns from all stakeholders.

Security Realignment Strategy: Redirect security resources toward genuine threats to national security, particularly Al-Shabaab’s renewed offensive capabilities and transnational criminal networks operating in Somali territory. Implement comprehensive retraining programs for security forces that emphasize human rights protection, community engagement, and counter-insurgency best practices. Establish clear protocols for the use of force that prioritize de-escalation and civilian protection in all operations.

Institutional Capacity Building: Develop transparent, accountable mechanisms for land administration that can handle disputes through legal processes rather than force. Strengthen judicial institutions to ensure they can provide fair, timely resolution of property disputes while maintaining public confidence. Implement comprehensive anti- corruption measures that include asset declaration requirements for government officials and public procurement transparency initiatives.

International Cooperation Framework: Work with regional and international partners to develop comprehensive strategies for addressing foreign exploitation of Somali vulnerabilities. This should include enhanced border security cooperation, financial intelligence sharing to track illicit resource flows, and diplomatic initiatives to address regional dynamics that contribute to Somali instability.

The Historical Imperative: Transformative Leadership in Post-Conflict

Your Excellency, Somalia stands at a crossroads where the path chosen will determine not only your political legacy but the future of an entire generation of Somalis who have known only conflict and instability. As the first Somali leader to be re-elected to the presidency, the international community’s billions of dollars invested in Somalia’s reconstruction, combined with the Somali people’s extraordinary resilience and commitment to building a better future, will prove meaningless if current policies continue to undermine the foundations of legitimate governance through the concentration of power that history warns us against. The Dangers of Centralized Power in Post-Conflict States Somalia’s tragic collapse in 1991 serves as a stark reminder that concentrated authority in post-conflict environments carries inherent dangers that can unravel decades of progress. The state’s disintegration was not merely the result of external pressures, it was fundamentally the consequence of decades of authoritarianism, political exclusion, and the systematic erosion of democratic institutions under centralized rule. My analysis of post-conflict transitions reveals that countries emerging from prolonged conflict are particularly vulnerable to the pathologies of concentrated power, as weak institutions and fragmented social trust create conditions where authoritarian tendencies can rapidly destabilize fragile recovery processes.

The exercise of centralized power is fundamentally incompatible with the needs of post-conflict societies like Somalia, where healing requires inclusion, reconciliation demands dialogue, and sustainable peace necessitates the distribution rather than concentration of authority. When leaders in post-conflict environments prioritize control over consensus, they inadvertently recreate the very conditions that originally led to state failure, generating new grievances while failing to address the underlying structural problems that fuel instability. True leadership in Somalia’s context cannot be measured by the accumulation of power, the control of resources, or the ability to impose unilateral decisions. Leadership is not about who is the richest or most advanced. Leadership is about who dares to make changes at the right time. In Somalia’s case, this means having the courage to decentralize power, to empower local governance structures, to nurture political parties that transcend clan divisions, and to embrace the complex but essential process of democratic consolidation that requires patience, humility, and genuine commitment to pluralistic governance. The choice before you transcends immediate political calculations and touches on fundamental questions about the nature of state power and its relationship to citizen welfare in post-conflict environments.

One path leads toward the consolidation of democratic institutions through power-sharing, respect for the rule of law through institutional strengthening, and sustainable peace through inclusive governance that provides security and prosperity for all Somalis. The alternative path leads toward the recreation of the centralized authoritarianism that historically produced state collapse, the empowerment of extremist organizations that thrive on exclusion and grievance, and the perpetuation of cycles of violence that have already extracted too high a price from our people.

My research on post-conflict transitions reveals that successful state-building requires leaders who can rise above narrow political interests to embrace the broader national good through transformative rather than transactional leadership. This often means making difficult decisions that may not serve immediate political objectives but are essential for long-term stability and prosperity. The current moment demands exactly this type of visionary leadership that heals rather than rules, that empowers rather than controls, and that builds lasting institutions rather than temporary dominance. The displacement of over 140,000 people in a single year represents a moral crisis that demands immediate attention. These are not mere statistics but families, children, elderly citizens, and vulnerable individuals who have placed their trust in Somalia’s democratic institutions. When the state becomes the primary source of their suffering rather than their protection, it fundamentally violates the social contract that legitimizes government authority.

Conclusion

The challenges facing Somalia are indeed complex and interconnected, requiring sophisticated responses that address root causes rather than merely treating symptoms. The current crisis surrounding land rights and political arrangements represents both a significant threat and a crucial opportunity to demonstrate that democratic governance can provide superior solutions to the problems facing Somali society.

By choosing dialogue over force, transparency over opacity, and inclusion over exclusion, your administration can show that democratic institutions offer hope for a better future. The alternative—continued reliance on force and unilateral decision-making—will inevitably strengthen the very extremist organizations that threaten Somalia’s future while providing foreign actors with opportunities to exploit Somali vulnerabilities for their own purposes.

The Somali people have endured enough suffering and deserve leadership that prioritizes their welfare over narrow political interests. I believe you have the wisdom and moral authority to make the right choice, but the window for action is rapidly closing. History will judge this moment, and I hope it will record that Somalia’s leaders chose the path of justice, unity, and peace.

Respectfully submitted,

Abdinoor Ibrahim Noor
Email: abdinoor.fareey@gmail.com
———–
Abdinor is a scholar and political Analyst