Why Did Somalia’s Court Wait Six Months to Void the Government?

Somalia's Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional amendments adopted in 2026 did not extend the four-year mandates of the current federal institutions. According to the court, the mandates of Parliament and the government expired on 14 April 2026, and President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's on 15 May. The ruling declares all constitutional and legal decisions taken after those dates invalid, allowing the government only to handle routine affairs in a "caretaker" capacity. The court also ordered political stakeholders to agree on a consensus electoral framework within 30 days and to hold elections within 90 days.

The timing and the form of the ruling say more than its content.

Silent in April, awake in November

The date on which the court says the mandates expired is 14 April. The date it gives for the president's mandate is 15 May. In other words, by its own ruling, the court quietly watched a president and a parliament whose terms had expired six months ago, without issuing a single statement. When it annulled the Galmudug elections in August, it never raised this "mandate" question. Now, days after the dismissal of the Chief Justice, and immediately after sources in Puntland revealed that a ruling "for which Said Deni and the UAE had spent large sums" was expected, the same court suddenly wakes up and declares that it does not recognize the government.

This sudden legal sensitivity after six months of silence is the clearest indication that the court is acting not as an independent judicial body but as a structure working to order. The ruling that Puntland sources had announced days in advance as "paid for" has now been delivered, not on Saturday but today, under a different cover.

An irregular ruling: a court without its chief, five signatures

The form of the ruling also undermines its legal legitimacy. Of the nine surviving members of the ten-member court, only five signed the statement. Two judges attended the reading but did not sign, one did not attend at all, and the Chief Justice was excluded from the proceedings entirely. The court takes refuge in the Judiciary Law, which sets a full bench at five judges; but a court whose chief has been excluded and whose members' signatures are missing by half declaring the president and parliament "out of office" is not a legal ruling but a political manifesto.

The contradiction within the ruling is also striking: the court accepted former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed's challenge to the mandate extensions while rejecting his challenge to the constitutional amendment procedure on the grounds that he "lacked legal standing." In other words, the court invalidated the consequences of the amendments without even opening their procedure to debate.

The target: Somalia's constitutional order

The amendments in question were adopted on 30 March 2024 by both houses of the federal parliament with the votes of Somali MPs. Replacing clan-based indirect elections with the principle of "one person, one vote," establishing a presidential system and limiting the number of political parties to three, these amendments form the foundation of the direct democracy Somalia has failed to build for thirty years. Puntland rejected them from the outset and declared that it did not recognize the federal institutions.

Today's ruling repeats, in the guise of a judicial decision, exactly the thesis Puntland has been defending for two years. This is no coincidence. At a time when Uganda is leaving Somalia after taking UAE money, Ethiopia is preparing to hand the south to Al-Shabaab, and Kenya is protecting the UAE-allied Jubaland, collapsing Somalia's constitutional order from within is the complement to creating a military vacuum from without.

This is not a judicial ruling, it is a coup attempt

There is a president, there is a parliament, and there is a constitution adopted by that parliament. Facing them is a panel whose chief has been excluded, declaring with a five-signature statement that "we recognize none of this." Behind that panel, as Puntland sources openly named days ago, stands the money of Said Deni and the United Arab Emirates.

A coup carried out through the judiciary is no less a coup than one carried out with tanks. When the court's order to hold elections within 90 days is read alongside its invalidation, in the same ruling, of the constitution that determines how those elections are to be held, it becomes clear that the goal is not elections but chaos. And chaos in this region always serves the same address: those who want Somalia divided, weak and dependent.

The test before Somalia is not whether to comply with the court's ruling; it is whether to surrender to a ruling whose author, timing and funding are all plain to see.