By Mohamed A Yasin
The recent conduct of Puntland’s Director General of the Ministry of Finance, Ahmed Jama Jowle, has reignited growing public outrage and deepened concerns over the collapse of neutrality within Puntland’s civil service.
Rather than functioning as a professional state official tasked with safeguarding public financial administration, the Director General has increasingly transformed himself into a political mouthpiece for the Puntland administration — openly attacking opposition figures while aggressively defending and praising the ruling leadership on social media and in public statements.
For many observers, the issue goes far beyond politics. It strikes at the very foundation of public service ethics and institutional governance. Under any functioning democratic system, a Director General is expected to remain politically neutral, serve all citizens equally, and avoid direct involvement in partisan political battles. Instead, Jowle has emerged as one of the loudest defenders of the Puntland presidency, repeatedly using inflammatory rhetoric against opposition leaders and critics of the government.
His latest statement regarding the Bari region and Puntland’s anti-ISIS operations was widely viewed not as a government briefing, but as a politically charged attack aimed at discrediting opponents of the administration. The language used was more fitting for a ruling party spokesperson than a senior civil servant entrusted with managing public institutions.
What has alarmed many within Puntland’s political and administrative circles is that this is not an isolated incident. It is merely one episode in a long pattern of behavior that has increasingly blurred the line between civil service and political activism.
Over the past several years, the Director General has repeatedly inserted himself into political controversies, frequently appearing on social media to criticize opposition leaders, defend controversial government policies, and attack critics of the Puntland administration. Instead of maintaining the professionalism and neutrality expected of a senior public servant, he has steadily evolved into one of the government’s most visible unofficial propagandists.
In any credible institutional system, such behavior would have triggered disciplinary measures or outright dismissal from office. A civil servant openly engaging in partisan political warfare while occupying one of the most sensitive financial positions in government would ordinarily be viewed as a serious breach of administrative ethics and governance standards.
Yet in Puntland, critics say the opposite has happened. Rather than reprimanding or removing him, the Puntland administration has reportedly praised and encouraged his public political attacks — reinforcing accusations that state institutions are increasingly being converted into instruments of political survival and personal loyalty.
“This is no longer a neutral civil service,” one political analyst in Garowe observed. “When a Director General openly behaves like a political campaigner for the ruling administration, the separation between the state and political power completely disappears.”
The controversy surrounding Jowle extends far beyond his political rhetoric. Inside the Ministry of Finance, the Director General has long faced allegations of corruption, inefficiency, abuse of office, and serious conflicts of interest. Multiple sources familiar with the ministry’s internal operations claim that businesses linked to him have routinely benefited from procurement contracts and supply arrangements connected to the ministry itself.
According to ministry insiders, companies allegedly associated with the Director General cater to various procurement needs of the Ministry of Finance — raising troubling questions about transparency, favoritism, and the use of public office for private commercial gain.
Employees within the ministry privately describe an environment plagued by weak accountability, patronage networks, and frustration over what they characterize as the merging of public office with personal business interests. “He acts less like a public servant and more like a political operative with financial interests tied directly to the ministry,” one source familiar with internal ministry affairs alleged.
Despite the seriousness of these accusations, there has been no known independent investigation, disciplinary review, or meaningful accountability process initiated by Puntland authorities. The government’s silence reflects a deeper institutional decay in which loyalty to the presidency has become more valuable than competence, professionalism, or integrity.
The situation has intensified wider fears about the erosion of Puntland’s governance institutions. What were once intended to function as independent state structures are increasingly viewed by critics as extensions of political power, where senior officials are rewarded not for performance or public service, but for defending those in office and attacking perceived opponents.
For many Puntland citizens, the scandal surrounding the Director General represents something much larger than one individual. It symbolizes the growing politicization of public institutions, the weakening of accountability mechanisms, and the normalization of corruption inside the state apparatus.
As Puntland continues to portray itself as a model of governance and stability within Somalia, critics argue that such claims are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain while senior civil servants openly engage in political propaganda and face unresolved allegations of corruption and self-enrichment.
The central question confronting Puntland today is no longer simply about one Director General. It is whether public institutions still belong to the people — or whether they have become instruments designed to protect political power, private business interests, and a shrinking circle of loyalists.
Mohamed A Yasin
Email: moyasin680@gmail.com