By Ahmed A. Yusuf

Somalia’s fragile security infrastructure faces yet another existential threat—not from Al-Shabaab, nor from foreign meddling, but from within its own government. MP Abdirahman Gurey’s warning that Hawadle clan militias (Macawiisley) would abandon the frontlines if NISA Director Abdullahi Sanbaloolshe is removed is an alarming reminder that tribalism still dictates far too much of Somalia’s political calculus.

In any functioning democracy or recovering state, such a statement would be treated as a national scandal. Here, it is business as usual. But make no mistake—Gurey’s tribalistic interference in the national security apparatus is not just reckless; it is a direct attack on the principle of institutional neutrality.

“You cannot defend a government employee using tribal blackmail,” said Dr. Hodan Barre, a Mogadishu-based political analyst. “This is a state security post, not a clan entitlement. When you threaten to pull fighters from the frontlines unless your clan’s man remains in power, you are no different from the warlords who ruined this country in the 1990s.”

MP Gurey’s comments reflect a broader decay in Somalia’s federal legislature, which has long been described as dysfunctional, corrupt, and merely ceremonial. It acts less as a legislative check on executive power and more as a rubber stamp—approving presidential decrees, controversial security agreements, and constitutional changes without quorum or debate.

“If MP Gurey were serious about public service, he would focus on reviving Somalia’s dead parliament,” said Fatima Nur, a civil society activist based in Beledweyne. “Instead, he’s trying to prop up a failed intelligence chief whose track record is one of division, betrayal, and failure.”

Sanbaloolshe’s Controversial Record

The man at the center of this storm, Abdullahi Sanbaloolshe, has never lasted more than six months in any of his multiple stints as NISA chief. His tenure is marked by instability, scandal, and tribal bias. One of the darkest chapters came during his previous term, when he was responsible for the illegal extradition of Somali freedom fighter Abdikarim Sheikh Muse, better known as Qalbi Dhagax, to Ethiopian authorities in 2017. The move was widely condemned as treasonous.

Even more troubling are the numerous videos circulating online in which Sanbaloolshe makes inflammatory tribal speeches. In these videos, he glorifies the atrocities committed by factions of the Hawiye clan during the 1991 collapse of the Somali central government—atrocities that many still consider acts of ethnic cleansing.

“This man should be barred from ever holding public office,” said Dahir Ismail, a lawyer and former prosecutor. “You cannot preach genocide and then expect to run a national intelligence agency. That’s like making a pyromaniac the fire chief.”

A Pattern Seen Around the World

The dangers of politicizing and tribalizing security forces are not unique to Somalia. Similar patterns in other fragile or recovering states have led to collapse, civil war, or long-term instability.

In Iraq, under the premiership of Nouri al-Maliki, the security forces were heavily staffed with members of his own Shi’a Dawa Party. Sunni officers were purged or marginalized. The result? When ISIS swept through northern Iraq in 2014, many Sunni officers defected or abandoned their posts, feeling no loyalty to a sectarian state. The collapse of Mosul’s defenses in a single night was a direct outcome of sectarian favoritism.

In South Sudan, President Salva Kiir purged the national army and security services of perceived loyalists of Vice President Riek Machar, mostly from the Nuer ethnic group. This tribalized approach to national defense led to mass defections and helped ignite the brutal civil war that began in 2013, resulting in nearly 400,000 deaths.

“Any time security forces are organized along tribal lines, the state becomes hostage to clans, not laws,” noted Dr. Abdirahman Buulle, a Horn of Africa security expert. “Somalia risks the same fate if people like MP Gurey are not stopped from making loyalty to clan more important than loyalty to the constitution.”

A Test of Presidential Will

The real test now lies with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Will he allow tribal pressure to dictate leadership at one of the country’s most critical agencies? Or will he assert that security leadership must be based on merit, accountability, and national interest—not clan politics?

Sanbaloolshe’s defenders argue that security in Mogadishu improved during his tenure, but available data and expert analyses offer little to support that claim. Instead, his legacy remains tainted by political purges, murky alliances, and overt tribalism. If anything, his continuation only deepens Somalia’s cycle of division and dysfunction.

Furthermore, rumors of Sanbaloolshe’s alleged ties to Ethiopia have never been properly investigated. Many still believe he maintains connections with Ethiopian intelligence and question his national loyalty, especially after the Qalbi Dhagax handover—a betrayal that even some members of his own clan could not defend.

“No self-respecting country would tolerate a security chief with such a track record,” said Ahmed Moallim, a retired Somali intelligence officer. “Letting him stay sends the message that tribalism and betrayal are acceptable qualifications.”

A Dangerous Precedent

If MP Gurey’s tribal warning goes unchallenged, it will set a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop other MPs from issuing similar threats if a clan member loses a government post? Should ministries, agencies, and the military now be divided by clan quota rather than capability?

Somalia has spent decades trying to emerge from the rubble of state collapse. The last thing it needs is a return to warlord logic disguised in parliamentary language.

Let the removal—or retention—of security leaders be based on performance, accountability, and national need. Not clan threats. Not political blackmail.

And certainly not from a parliament that has failed its people time and again.

Ahmed A. Yusuf
Email: aayuusuf44@gmail.com