Garowe (WDN) — Puntland has issued one of its clearest statements yet on the conditions under which it would rejoin a fully agreed Somali federal system, insisting that the country cannot achieve lasting political stability without a constitution endorsed directly by the Somali people.

Puntland Minister of Youth and Sports Caydiid Dirir said Puntland would continue to engage with the international community independently until Somalia has a government and political order based on broad national agreement.

His remarks come as Somalia’s prolonged political negotiations between President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s Federal Government and opposition forces remain deadlocked after months of internationally supported talks.

According to Minister Dirir, Puntland is not opposed to being part of a united Somali state. Rather, he said, Puntland’s position is that such a state must be built on a genuine political agreement and a permanent constitution approved directly by the Somali people.

“Puntland is ready to be part of a Somali government that is based on agreement, provided that the country has a constitution that is not provisional and that has been directly approved by the Somali people,” Dirir said. The statement goes to the heart of Somalia’s current political crisis.

Negotiations Stalled as Political Maneuvering Continues

For months, international partners have attempted to mediate between President Hassan Sheikh’s administration and a broad coalition of opposition leaders over elections, constitutional arrangements, federal-state relations, and the future distribution of political power. Yet the negotiations have repeatedly failed to produce a comprehensive agreement.

The central problem is no longer simply disagreement over the technical details of an electoral system. It is a much deeper dispute over who has the authority to determine Somalia’s political rules—and whether those rules can be changed without broad national consent.

Critics of the Federal Government accuse President Hassan Sheikh of maintaining an uncompromising negotiating position while simultaneously pursuing a political strategy designed to strengthen his influence outside Mogadishu.

They point to developments in several Federal Member States, where opponents allege that the administration has sought to influence regional political processes and install leaderships considered sympathetic to Villa Somalia.

For these critics, the contradiction is striking: while international mediators continue trying to bring Somalia’s rival political camps around one negotiating table, political battles over the leadership of Federal Member States continue on the ground.

The Federal Member State Question

The controversy is particularly significant because Federal Member States are not merely administrative subdivisions. They are central components of Somalia’s federal political architecture.

Puntland, Jubaland, South West State, Galmudug and Hirshabelle each possess their own political institutions and security structures, while sharing constitutional responsibilities with the Federal Government. The growing confrontation over regional leadership therefore has national consequences.

Critics of President Hassan Sheikh argue that attempts to reshape political leadership in multiple states while negotiations remain unresolved risk undermining the very federal consensus that international mediators are attempting to build.

They fear that if regional administrations become politically dependent on Mogadishu, Somalia’s federal system could gradually become centralized around the presidency.

Supporters of the Federal Government reject that interpretation, arguing that strengthening national political institutions and encouraging democratic, party-based elections are necessary steps toward building a functioning Somali state.

The dispute therefore goes far beyond personalities. It is fundamentally about the future balance between federal authority and regional autonomy.

Puntland’s Constitutional Demand

Puntland’s latest position reflects a longstanding argument that Somalia’s temporary constitutional arrangements cannot indefinitely serve as the foundation for a permanent political settlement. The demand for a constitution approved directly by the Somali people represents a significant constitutional red line.

From Puntland’s perspective, the legitimacy of the country’s future political system must come from a process broad enough to include the Federal Government, Federal Member States, political opposition, traditional leaders, civil society and, ultimately, Somali citizens themselves. Without that consensus, Puntland argues, constitutional changes risk becoming instruments of political competition rather than foundations for stable governance.

That position also explains why the current negotiations have become so difficult. The opposing camps are not simply negotiating over how to hold an election. They are negotiating over the rules under which Somalia itself will be governed. The danger is that prolonged negotiations may continue to run in parallel with political developments on the ground.

If the Federal Government succeeds in strengthening its influence over several Federal Member States before a national agreement is reached, critics argue, the eventual political settlement could be shaped by a new balance of power rather than by genuine consensus. That could make an eventual agreement even more difficult.

Somalia has experienced this cycle before: political competition produces mistrust; mistrust weakens cooperation between Mogadishu and the states; weakened cooperation creates security and political crises; and those crises make national consensus even harder to achieve.

Meanwhile, the country faces serious security threats, economic pressures and an uncertain electoral timetable. Every additional month of political paralysis therefore carries a cost.

The Choice Before Somalia

Puntland’s message is ultimately a challenge to all sides. The Federal Government must decide whether it wants a federal system built around negotiated legitimacy or one increasingly defined by political dominance from the center.

The opposition must demonstrate that its alternative is capable of producing functioning institutions rather than simply resisting the incumbent government. And the Federal Member States must determine how they can defend their constitutional powers while remaining part of a viable Somali federation.

International partners can facilitate negotiations, provide technical assistance and encourage compromise. But they cannot manufacture the political agreement that Somalia’s leaders themselves have so far failed to reach. The fundamental question is therefore becoming increasingly unavoidable:

Will Somalia’s political leaders negotiate a federal settlement broad enough to command national legitimacy—or will political maneuvering continue to deepen the divisions that have kept the country locked in crisis?

Puntland’s latest statement suggests that, for now, it is unwilling to accept a political arrangement simply because it has been declared by Mogadishu. Its message is clear: Somalia can be one country, but its political future must be built on agreement, constitutional legitimacy and the consent of its people.

WardheerNews