By Hussien Mohamed Yusuf

Scholarly discussions emerging from the Somali Region are both necessary and deeply welcomed. They represent an evolving intellectual maturity and a willingness to question, analyze, and learn from the region’s political journey. I have therefore decided to add my tone to this important conversation. I personally know both authors, Abdi-Rizak Warfa and Mohamed Olad, and hold respect for their intellectual contributions but will always remain to add my voice where necessary for clarification and contribution. I also feel compelled to engage in this debate, offering my reflections on the issues they raised and the broader implications for governance and public discourse in the Somali Region.

In that regard, Mohamed Olad’s rejoinder  to Abdi-Rizak Warfa’s  contributes to a richer understanding of leadership in one of Ethiopia’s most dynamic regions. Yet, Olad’s critique seems to hinge on literal details that, while interesting, risk obscuring the wider argument that Warfa’s essay sought to provoke-an examination of political transformation, leadership contradictions, and the complex legacy of reform.

Olad’s first line of argument focuses on factual discrepancies such as the school Mustafa Omer attended or his exact professional title in the Teachers’ Training College. While accuracy is important, these are peripheral to the essence of Warfa’s analysis. A minor oversight in chronology or labeling does not invalidate the thrust of an argument about leadership evolution. In political writing, context and interpretation often matter more than clerical precision.

Indeed, Mustafa’s trajectory from teacher to administrator, activist to regional leader is well established. Whether one cites Harar or Degahbour as his high school location does not alter the central narrative of a man shaped by both defiance and reformist fervor. By reducing the discussion to these technicalities, Olad diverts attention from more profound questions that Warfa raised: How does power change a dissident? Does reform survive the realities of governance? These are the issues that define leadership not where one studied or which title one held.

Olad also challenges Warfa’s tone, implying concealed bias against President Mustafa. Yet, critique is not hostility. Intellectual inquiry thrives on skepticism, and Warfa’s piece, though sharp, did not vilify the president, it contextualized his leadership within the tension between ideals and governance. Moreover, the claim that profiling a sitting president is “risky business” is not contradictory; it reflects the caution required in environments where political discourse, though freer than before, still navigates unspoken boundaries.

Warfa’s acknowledgment of this risk was not exaggeration but honesty. It reflects the delicate balance that scholars, journalists, and analysts must maintain when engaging power. The Somali Region has come far from its darker political past, but true freedom of expression remains a fragile construct that must be nurtured and not assumed.

Olad defends the regional administration’s inclusivity and economic openness which are points worthy of recognition. However, he overlooks his own past commentaries that have criticized the very same development trajectory he now praises. His social media reflections have previously raised serious questions about the water sector, uneven service delivery, and the widening gap between rhetoric and reality. Such contradictions weaken his current argument that the region’s transformation is both comprehensive and equitable.

Warfa’s critique does not deny progress; it cautions against self-righteousness. A decade after Abdi Iley’s fall, structural inequalities, administrative centralization, and elite-driven politics continue to test the region’s democratic maturity. These are not inventions of “ghost analysts” but concerns echoed by civic leaders, journalists, and researchers familiar with SRS governance.

On the matter of the ONLF, Olad’s defense of Mustafa’s handling of the issue simplifies Warfa’s nuanced analysis. The question was never whether a ruling party should strengthen its opposition; it was about how reconciliation and political inclusion are managed in a society still healing from years of mistrust. The fragmentation of ONLF cannot be dismissed as an inevitable fate without recognizing the role of political incentives, inclusion mechanisms, and leadership style.

Equally, dismissing the persistence of clannism ignores deeper social dynamics. Symbolic representation does not automatically erase entrenched divisions. Warfa’s warning was clear-the region must move beyond surface inclusivity and toward institutional fairness. That message, rather than being antagonistic, is constructive and necessary for lasting stability.

Olad’s argument that reliance on the federal budget is constitutionally normal also misses the essence of Warfa’s critique. Dependency can coexist with legality. Federal systems are not judged solely on budgetary autonomy, but on how regional leadership interprets and exercises its powers. Warfa’s observation that SRS exhibits “excess dependence” was political, not financial. The Somali Region’s growing integration with the federal structure is commendable as the region is part and parcel of the greater Ethioia, but self-sufficiency is measured not just in numbers—it is tested through the ability to act independently, to prioritize local needs, and to craft distinct policy visions.

Warfa’s essay was never an indictment of Mustafa Omer. It was a reflection on the paradox of reformist governance-how dissent transforms into power and how ideals are tested by the burdens of authority. Olad’s response, though valuable, falters when it turns critique into personal defense. Both writers are engaged in the same noble pursuit: understanding the political evolution of the Somali Region and its leadership.

In the end, the true value of this debate lies not in proving who is right, but in advancing a culture of critical thought in our region. The Somali Region, with its complex history and emerging intellectual vibrancy, needs such exchanges. As we debate facts, tone, and interpretation, let us not lose sight of Warfa’s central challenge which is to examine, without fear or favoritism, whether the promise of change has been realized for ordinary citizens. The mark of genuine intellectualism is not unanimity, but the courage to question, to listen, and to see beyond the narrow lanes of loyalty.

Hussien Mohamed Yusuf
Email: Hussienm4@gmail.com