By Abdullahi A. Nor

For more than four months, the International Community (IC) has presided over what it describes as a mediation process between former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Somalia’s opposition. Since the talks began in March 2026, diplomats have issued optimistic communiqués, held countless meetings, and repeatedly assured Somalis that dialogue remains the only path out of the country’s constitutional crisis.

The results speak for themselves. There has been no political breakthrough. There is no agreement on the constitutional dispute. There is no mutually accepted electoral roadmap. There are no confidence-building measures. There is no mechanism preventing unilateral political actions while negotiations continue.

Instead, Somalia’s constitutional crisis has deepened, while the mediation process has become increasingly detached from the political realities unfolding across the country. Reports circulating in Mogadishu indicate that another internationally backed round of political talks is scheduled for July 6, 2026. However, few Somalis expect anything to come of it.

Among intellectuals, respected traditional elders, opposition leaders and large sections of the public, confidence in what many now describe as the International Community’s “sterile mediation” has largely evaporated. The cycle has become painfully predictable. Diplomats arrive. Meetings are held. Carefully worded statements are issued. Photographs are taken. Promises are made.

Then Somalia sinks deeper into crisis. That is not mediation. It is diplomacy without results.
A credible mediator does not merely organize meetings. A credible mediator prevents either side from changing the political landscape while negotiations are underway. By that standard, the International Community has failed.

Had the mediators entered this process with a coherent strategy, clear benchmarks and meaningful consequences for unilateral political action, Somalia would almost certainly not be standing on the edge of another constitutional rupture. Instead, while negotiations continued behind closed doors, Somalia’s political map continued to be redrawn in plain sight. The first major test came in South West State.

Opposition leaders argue that after what they regard as the expiry of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s constitutional mandate on May 15, 2026, the Federal Government proceeded with a unilateral political process in Baidoa that culminated in the installation of a new regional president – President Aden Madobe. They maintain that the move violated both the Provisional Federal Constitution and the autonomy guaranteed to Somalia’s Federal Member States. Supporters of the Federal Government failed to reject that interpretation. However, one reality is impossible to ignore.

Since those events, Baidoa has remained engulfed in armed confrontation between forces aligned with the Federal Government and fighters loyal to former South West President Abdiaziz Laftagareen. Rather than restoring stability, the political dispute has evolved into a protracted security crisis that continues to threaten one of Somalia’s most strategically important federal states.

What has disturbed many Somalis even more than the fighting itself is the silence of the International Community. Critics ask a simple question. How can mediators claim neutrality while remaining publicly silent during one of the most consequential political confrontations in Somalia’s federal history?

That silence has profoundly damaged public confidence in the mediation process.Among sections of the opposition and the wider public, a perception has emerged that international partners effectively accepted the events in Baidoa by refusing to challenge them publicly. Some have gone further, arguing that Villa Somalia acted with what it believed to be tacit international approval.

Others have questioned why Turkish-operated drones—capabilities intended to support the fight against Al-Shabaab—were reportedly deployed during the Baidoa operation. Residents of Baidoa who witnessed the events have consistently maintained that the drones were used, reinforcing a widespread public perception that international partners either tolerated or failed to object to the operation.

Whether that perception is accurate or not, the International Community’s public silence has fueled accusations that it was, at best, indifferent and, at worst, complicit in actions that critics regard as unconstitutional. Whether justified or not, these perceptions matter. Mediation depends as much upon the appearance of impartiality as upon impartiality itself. That appearance has been badly damaged.

Now, attention has shifted to Galmudug. Many ordinary Somalis and opposition politicians fear that the upcoming presidential election will simply replicate what they believe unfolded in Baidoa—a predetermined process in which the outcome is decided long before the ballots are cast. They argue that the process has become a political formality rather than a genuine contest and claim that Libaan Shuluq is widely viewed as Villa Somalia’s candidate. Whether that prediction proves correct remains to be seen. The greater problem is that many Somalis already believe the outcome has been decided before the first ballot is cast.

Beyond Galmudug lies Hirshabelle, the final piece in what critics describe as a broader political strategy. They argue that former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is racing against time to consolidate his influence over Somalia’s Federal Member States, ensuring that the Members of Parliament and Senators emerging from South West State, Galmudug, and Hirshabelle will support his anticipated bid for a third presidential term.

From this perspective, the regional elections are not isolated contests over local leadership but a calculated effort to shape the composition of the next Federal Parliament long before Somalis go to the polls. Unless the constitutional crisis is resolved first, every subsequent Federal Member State election risks becoming another source of confrontation rather than legitimacy. This is where the International Community faces its greatest test.

If the mediators genuinely seek to preserve Somalia’s federal order, they cannot continue behaving as though constitutional disputes and regional elections exist in separate worlds. They do not.

Every contested regional election changes the political balance while negotiations remain unresolved. Every unilateral political action makes compromise more difficult. Every disputed transition deepens mistrust. From the perspective of many opposition leaders and constitutional scholars, the central issue can no longer be ignored.

They argue that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s constitutional mandate expired on May 15, 2026. On that basis, they contend that all unilateral actions affecting the leadership of Somalia’s Federal Member States after that date remain constitutionally disputed and should not be accepted as settled political realities. Whether or not others agree with that constitutional interpretation, it lies at the heart of the current political crisis. Ignoring it will not make it disappear.

If the International Community wishes to restore confidence in its mediation, it should insist that no party be permitted to reshape Somalia’s federal architecture while negotiations remain unfinished. From this perspective, all unilateral political actions affecting the leadership of South West State, Galmudug, and Hirshabelle after May 15,2026 should be treated as provisional and reviewed as part of a comprehensive constitutional settlement negotiated by the Federal Government, the Federal Member States, the opposition, and other national stakeholders.

This is not about rewarding one political camp or punishing another. It is about preserving the credibility of Somalia’s constitutional order. No mediation can succeed if one negotiating party is allowed to consolidate political gains while the other is asked to remain at the negotiating table. No mediator can claim neutrality while political realities continue to shift in favour of one side.

History offers a harsh lesson. Nations rarely collapse overnight. They weaken gradually as constitutions lose authority, institutions lose legitimacy, and political disputes replace legal processes. Somalia has already travelled too far down that road. The warning signs are unmistakable.

The International Community must now decide whether it wishes to be remembered as the force that defended Somalia’s constitutional order—or as the bystander that watched it unravel while issuing carefully worded statements and scheduling one failed mediation after another.

Somalia deserves more than endless dialogue without results. It deserves principled mediation, constitutional consistency, and a political settlement that restores public confidence in the rule of law before the country’s federal system reaches the point of no return.

Abdullahi A. Nor
Email: abdulahinor231@gmail.com