By Isha Qarsoon[1]

Somalia, a nation whose economy pulses with the rhythm of pastoral life, finds itself once again entangled in a governance crisis that cuts across federalism, corruption, and economic mismanagement. The controversy surrounding President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s decision to grant exclusive livestock export rights to a Saudi (or Yemeni, according to some) businessman, Abu Yasir, has ignited fierce debate. It is a moment that encapsulates the frailty of the country’s fiscal federalism, its persistent struggles with corruption, and the ever-present tension between the central government and federal member states. It is also a moment that has left thousands of Somali traders stranded and their livestock—an industry valued at billions—at risk of rotting in limbo.

The decision was sudden, unexpected. It bypassed traditional systems, ignored local traders, and concentrated power in the hands of a single foreign businessman. Lawmakers, nearly a hundred of them, condemned it. Regions, such as Somaliland, openly defied it, halting livestock exports through the Berbera port in protest. To those familiar with the labyrinth of Somali governance, this was not just about livestock; it was a deeper battle over authority, a dispute rooted in the unresolved question of who controls the country’s wealth. Somalia’s fiscal federalism—or lack thereof—had once again found its way into the headlines, and with it, accusations of corruption and economic favoritism.

At the heart of this crisis is the perennial struggle over resource control between Mogadishu and its federal member states. The Baidoa Agreement sought to provide a framework for fiscal federalism, primarily in managing petroleum and minerals. It acknowledged the need for resource-sharing but failed to address other key sectors like livestock—sectors that sustain the majority of Somalis. That oversight has left space for unilateral federal decisions, such as this livestock monopoly, which have been met with backlash. However, the struggle over fiscal federalism in Somalia extends far beyond livestock exports or natural resources. The reality is that the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) and the Federal Member States (FMS) do not share tax revenues collected by either level of government. Instead of fostering a cooperative governance model, where both levels of government operate in tandem to build a strong national economy, the federal government often seeks alternative ways to extract revenue.

The current crisis is just one example of this pattern. In addition to granting exclusive export rights to Abu Yasir, the federal government is also pursuing backdoor taxation mechanisms, imposing fees and duties without properly coordinating with regional authorities. Rather than working toward a system where federal and state governments manage the economy through transparent agreements, the FGS continues to assert financial dominance through opaque deals and monopolistic policies. This approach not only alienates regional governments but further erodes trust in federal leadership, exacerbating the fragile balance of governance in Somalia.

For the herders, brokers, and traders who depend on this trade, the consequences have been dire. Livestock shipments, particularly those meant for the annual Hajj season in Saudi Arabia, have been thrown into disarray. During this time of the lunar year, ports once bustling with the movement of goats and sheep now stand still, the animals stranded, waiting for a resolution that may not come in time. For many, this is not just an economic loss but an existential threat. When the FGS and FMSs cannot agree on duties imposed on exports, it does not just inconvenience traders; it erodes trust in governance itself. The resulting financial loss trickles down through families who depend on this trade, affecting access to food, healthcare, and education for many households across Somalia.

There is another, uglier side to this story. The name Abu Yasir is not new in Somali business circles, and neither are the whispers of backroom deals and political favoritism. Many believe that this monopoly was not a matter of efficiency but a matter of influence—a decision greased by corruption. The Somali government has long struggled with transparency, ranking among the most corrupt in global indices. This latest controversy does little to change that reputation. If anything, it reinforces the perception that decisions are made not in the interest of the people, but in the service of private deals struck in the corridors of power. The lack of oversight, coupled with an absence of checks and balances, allows such deals to flourish, perpetuating a cycle of economic disenfranchisement for ordinary citizens.

Parliament, sensing the political heat, has vowed to investigate. Lawmakers have promised hearings, inquiries, and scrutiny over the executive decision. Whether these efforts will yield accountability or simply fizzle out as political theater remains to be seen. The reality, however, is stark: Somalia’s governance crisis is not just about livestock, nor is it just about this single deal. It is about how power is used, how decisions are made, and how a fragile federal system remains vulnerable to manipulation. The long-term effects of this decision go beyond immediate financial losses; they reinforce a governance structure where federal overreach is the norm, and where local voices are routinely ignored.

Somalia’s future depends on resolving these governance flaws. The country cannot afford policies that centralize economic power in a way that alienates federal member states. It cannot sustain a culture where corruption, not policy, dictates decision-making. Most importantly, it cannot build a prosperous economy on monopolies that suffocate competition and disenfranchise its own citizens. This moment presents a crucial opportunity for Somalia’s leadership to rectify its course and establish clearer frameworks that prioritize fairness, equity, and transparency in resource management.

As this crisis unfolds, Ramadan approaches, a time when governance often takes a backseat as those in power depart not for religious obligations, but to escape the harsh realities of fasting in Somalia. Seeking a more tranquil life elsewhere, they abandon the challenges faced by ordinary citizens, leaving the country’s pressing governance issues unresolved. With decision-makers distracted or away, the urgency of resolving this controversy may wane, leaving traders and herders to suffer the consequences alone.

The story of this crisis is still unfolding. Perhaps there will be reversals. Perhaps protests and legislative pushback will force a change. But even if the decision is overturned, the damage will linger. Trust in governance, once eroded, is not easily rebuilt. The traders will remember. The lawmakers will remember. And so will the people. And as Somalia navigates this crisis, it faces a critical choice: to continue down a path where economic monopolies and corruption dominate, or to pave the way for a more transparent, inclusive, and accountable system of governance that serves all Somalis, not just the privileged few.

Isha Qarsoon

[1] The writer can be reached at ishaqarsoon1@gmail.com.

________

Related articles:

From Reform to Controversy: President Hassan’s second term By Abdullahi A. Nor