The postponement of talks between President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and opposition leaders should surprise no one. The real obstacle is not a disagreement over the meeting’s agenda, but a deepening constitutional and institutional crisis that the presidency has helped create.

Mogadishu (WDN) – The postponement of the political dialogue scheduled for 14 November in Mogadishu was hardly unexpected. Its failure had been apparent well before the appointed date. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud had, as in previous attempts, approached the international community about not participating in the meeting, ostensibly to give Somalis an opportunity to resolve their differences among themselves.

That position, however, does little to explain the impasse. The central problem is that Somalia’s political crisis has moved far beyond disagreements over the format, agenda or mediation of a meeting. It concerns the legitimacy of the institutions, constitutional arrangements and electoral process through which the country is supposed to be governed.

The latest postponement follows continuing disagreements over the conditions for dialogue. Some opposition leaders want an internationally accepted third-party mediator, arguing that negotiations cannot succeed without a neutral facilitator trusted by all sides. Others insist that previous unresolved disputes must be addressed before any new dialogue begins. The absence of the presidents of Puntland and Jubaland has further undermined the prospect of an inclusive political settlement.

These are not minor procedural differences. They reflect a fundamental lack of confidence in the government’s intentions and in the institutions responsible for managing the country’s political transition.

The judiciary crisis undermines the foundations of government

One of the most serious developments has been the controversy surrounding the judiciary, a constitutional pillar of the state. The judiciary, alongside the executive and legislature, is essential to the constitutional order. It is meant to provide independent oversight, uphold the law and protect citizens against the arbitrary exercise of power.

Yet the removal of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed, and the controversy surrounding the circumstances of that decision, have raised serious questions about judicial independence and the separation of powers.

A government cannot credibly call for national reconciliation while its own actions are perceived to weaken the institutions that should guarantee constitutional accountability. Nor can political leaders be expected to negotiate in good faith if they believe that constitutional disputes will ultimately be settled through executive power rather than independent institutions.

President Hassan must therefore address the judiciary crisis directly. The reinstatement of Baashe Yusuf Ahmed should be considered an essential step towards restoring confidence in the independence of the Supreme Court and the constitutional separation of powers.

The constitutional and electoral questions cannot be avoided

The dispute also concerns the government’s constitutional amendments and the electoral arrangements it is seeking to implement. Opposition leaders have challenged the process through which the constitutional changes were pursued, as well as the authority, independence and impartiality of the National Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

The government has announced its intention to hold one-person, one-vote elections in 2027. But announcing an electoral timetable does not, by itself, establish political consensus or confer legitimacy on the process. Elections require an agreed constitutional framework, credible institutions, broad political participation and confidence among the competing parties.

The controversy is further complicated by elections conducted under the federal government’s political and electoral arrangements in South West, Hirshabelle and Galmudug. Critics argue that these processes were unilaterally imposed and lacked the necessary political consensus. The government must answer those objections rather than treating its electoral programme as an accomplished national agreement.

President Hassan should make an unequivocal statement about the constitutional and electoral framework he intends to uphold. If the government is unwilling to reconsider the disputed constitutional amendments, the legitimacy of the electoral commission and the contested regional electoral arrangements, it must explain how it expects opposition leaders and federal member states to accept the proposed transition.

Dialogue cannot substitute for political accountability

The opposition itself is not entirely united. Some opposition figures support the principle of direct elections but dispute the commission and the government’s approach to implementation. Others continue to favour an indirect electoral model. These differences complicate the search for a common position, but they do not absolve the federal government of its responsibility to establish a credible and inclusive process.

The absence of a unified opposition position is not a justification for unilateral action. In a federal system, the legitimacy of major constitutional and electoral decisions depends on consultation, agreement and respect for the constitutional responsibilities of the federal member states.

The president cannot simultaneously claim to be seeking national consensus while proceeding with disputed constitutional and electoral arrangements without resolving the objections raised by significant political stakeholders.

Somalia needs a political settlement, not another postponed meeting

The 14 November postponement is therefore a symptom, not the cause, of Somalia’s political paralysis. The country needs more than another round of private consultations or an announcement that talks will resume at a later date. It needs a credible process to restore constitutional order, rebuild institutional trust and establish an electoral framework accepted by the principal political stakeholders.

President Hassan should begin by confronting the central questions: the status and legitimacy of the disputed constitutional amendments; the independence and credibility of the electoral commission; the legitimacy of the contested regional electoral processes; and the independence of the judiciary.

Above all, he should take concrete steps to restore confidence in the Supreme Court, including addressing the removal of its former Chief Justice, Baashe Yusuf Ahmed.

The international community should also recognise that standing aside in the name of allowing Somalis to resolve their differences is not enough when the institutions required to facilitate such a settlement are themselves at the centre of the dispute. International partners should support an inclusive, impartial and constitutionally grounded process without becoming instruments of any political faction.

Somalia cannot resolve its crisis by convening meetings while avoiding the issues that make those meetings necessary. Until the government demonstrates a willingness to address the constitutional and institutional disputes at the heart of the impasse, the failure of another dialogue will remain entirely predictable.

The question is no longer why the 14 November meeting failed. It is whether President Hassan is prepared to restore the constitutional foundations of the state before the political crisis becomes even harder to contain.

WardheerNews