Mogadishu (WDN) — There is a Somali proverb: a man blind to his own faults cannot see the faults of others “Nin og ciibtiisa ma arko ceeb kale”. Few figures in Somalia’s recent political history embody that warning more starkly than Abdikarim Hussein Guuleed.
Once a central figure in government, Guuleed has re-emerged as a vocal critic of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. But his renewed posture has triggered a wave of backlash, because the record he now condemns bears striking resemblance to the one he helped shape.
Guuleed who in the past have held numerous government posts that includes Federal Ministry of Security and the President of Galmudug, presided over some of the earliest and most controversial patterns of land dispossession in Mogadishu. He is linked to the forced displacement of civilians, including the demolition of homes belonging to more than 600 families in Waaberi district. Allegations persist that public land, particularly in high-value areas such as the airport security zone was seized and sold outside formal treasury channels.
The pattern did not stop there. Guuleed has also been associated with policies that normalized the sale of state land through administrative decrees, effectively redefining public assets as tradable commodities. Entire neighborhoods, including areas identified with Galmudug communities in Mogadishu, are said to have been reshaped or erased under these practices.
His tenure as Minister of Security was turbulent. Within months, Somalia experienced a high-profile attacks targeting core institutions, the Presidential Palace, Parliament, major courts, police headquarters, and even a visiting Qatari delegation. The scale and frequency of these incidents raised serious questions about capacity and control.
Guuleed himself acknowledged those limitations. In a public address, he admitted the role was beyond him and stepped down. Later, after being elected president of Galmudug, he resigned again within months, citing inability to continue.
That history now shadows his current criticism of the government. Because the issue is not whether the administration deserves scrutiny, it does. The issue is credibility. When a figure accused of pioneering the very practices he now condemns positions himself as a reformist voice, the message collapses under its own contradictions.
Guuleed’s interest and interventions are not acts of accountability, but of political repositioning, an attempt to distance himself from a legacy that continues to define him. The accusations extend even further, with some alleging troubling associations and decisions that, if substantiated, would raise serious national security concerns.
None of these claims erase his right to speak. But they do shape how he is heard. In a political landscape already strained by mistrust, Somalia does not lack voices. It lacks consistency. It lacks accountability that begins at home.
And until those who seek to challenge power confront their own record with the same intensity they direct at others, the line between critic and participant will remain blurred—if not indistinguishable. Because in the end, the question is not who speaks loudest. It is who stands cleanest.
WardheerNews