Mogadishu (WDN) — Galmudug MP Abdirahman Cagaweyne has launched a sharp attack on the Supreme Court after it annulled the disputed July elections in the federal member state, accusing the court of issuing an unjustified decision without sufficient evidence.

Cagaweyne argued that only the Towfiiq political organization had formally challenged the election and claimed that the alleged irregularities were limited to certain areas. He described the Supreme Court’s decision as “wrong and unjust,” insisting that the court had failed to provide adequate evidence for overturning the results.

The MP’s intervention, however, raises broader questions about his understanding of constitutional law and his record as a federal legislator. For much of his tenure, critics say, Cagaweyne has been conspicuously silent on the Federal Government’s controversial electoral agenda, including the one-sided election model promoted by Villa Somalia, which opposition groups and several political stakeholders have condemned as unconstitutional and lacking broad national consensus.

He has not been equally vocal when constitutional principles and political inclusiveness were at the center of Somalia’s wider electoral dispute. His sudden criticism of the Supreme Court therefore being viewed less as a principled defense of constitutional governance and more as a political intervention at a particularly sensitive moment.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was not based simply on political disagreement. The court found that the Galmudug elections were not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and electoral law and that serious irregularities had undermined the integrity, independence and credibility of the process. That makes the legal issue straightforward: if an election violates the law, Parliamentarians should be defending the law—not attacking the institution tasked with enforcing it.

Cagaweyne’s critics also question his record on issues affecting his own constituents. He has faced accusations of failing to speak out when residents from Galmudug in Mogadishu were   displaced from public land amid disputed landgrab transactions. Those realities are serious and should be taken and referred to courts. His opponents now argue that his criticism of the Supreme Court comes at a politically convenient time, particularly as questions about his standing among constituents grow.

Rather than addressing the substance of the court’s findings, Cagaweyne has focused his attack on the institution itself. That approach does little to answer the fundamental question raised by the ruling: Were the elections conducted according to the law?
If the answer is no, then the annulment is not an attack on democracy. It is precisely what the rule of law is supposed to provide—a constitutional mechanism for correcting an unlawful electoral process.

For a federal legislator, the responsibility should be clear: defend the Constitution, demand transparent elections and protect the rights of constituents—not simply echo the interests of whoever holds political power in Mogadishu.

The Supreme Court has now ordered a fresh electoral process in Galmudug. The real test for Somalia’s political class is whether they will respect that decision and work toward an election whose legitimacy rests on law rather than political influence.

WardheerNews