Somali opposition backs 90-day election order as government contests ruling

Somalia’s opposition backed the Supreme Court’s order for elections within 90 days on November 8, supporting a vote months earlier than the electoral commission’s April–May 2027 schedule. For Somalis awaiting their next national elections, the difference concerns both when voting should happen and which institutions have authority to organise it.

At a news conference, the Somali Future Council also described President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s dismissal of the chief justice as a “coup” against the court. That is the opposition’s characterization. Its response followed two separate November 5 decisions: one concerning national leaders’ terms and another rejecting the chief justice’s removal. Somalia Today reported the council’s position.

The term dispute turns on a straightforward question: when a constitution gives officeholders longer terms, do the people already serving automatically receive the extra time?

According to Garowe Online’s account of the judgment, the five-judge panel said they do not. Constitutional changes increased presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years, but the judges found no explicit provision extending the mandates of current officeholders. They concluded that parliament’s term ended on April 14, 2026, and Mohamud’s on May 15.

The court also found that the cabinet’s mandate ended with parliament’s, because parliament approves and oversees it. The judges declared decisions taken under the institutions’ constitutional and legal powers after their terms expired invalid, while allowing the cabinet to handle routine administration as a caretaker government.

The resulting calendars differ substantially:

Ordinary calendar counting puts the court’s windows in early December and early February. The commission’s parliamentary and presidential dates fall roughly two and three months beyond that February point. This comparison describes the gap without assuming how legal deadline-counting rules apply. The commission’s dates come directly from its October 15 announcement in Somali.

The government disputes the ruling’s legal force. On November 6, the attorney general’s office challenged the court’s authority to hear the case, former president Sharif Sheikh Ahmed’s right to bring it, the panel’s composition and its procedure. It promised further legal action without specifying the steps, according to Somalia Today’s account of its response.

That report also describes the judges’ reasoning: the revised constitution temporarily assigns the Supreme Court the functions of a constitutional court until that institution is established. The panel rejected Sharif’s challenge to the amendment process because he lacked standing—the legal right to pursue that particular claim—but accepted his challenge to the resulting term extensions. Rejecting one part of his petition therefore did not dispose of the whole case.

The chief justice’s dismissal raises a different question: what procedure must a president follow to remove the head of the judiciary?

Mohamud dismissed Bashe Yusuf Ahmed on November 4 and appointed Ibrahim Idle Suleiman, citing complaints about judicial administration. According to JURIST’s account, the court ruled the next day that removal required support from two-thirds of the Supreme Judicial Council and approval by a majority of the full membership of each parliamentary chamber.

Suleiman nevertheless took the oath at the presidential palace on November 7. Goobjoog reported the ceremony alongside the continuing legal dispute; the state news agency SONNA confirmed Mohamud’s attendance. The ceremony documents the presidency proceeding with its appointment. It does not resolve the court’s objection to the removal procedure.

Mohamud has invited opposition and civil society groups to consultations on November 14–18. Differences extend beyond dates: the government favours direct voting administered by the national electoral commission, while the Future Council proposes a transitional direct vote retaining clan-based seat allocations and a role for regional governments. Somalia Today describes both proposals. Those are substantive rules still at issue. A court deadline, an opposition endorsement and an invitation to talks do not themselves establish an agreed election framework or a transfer of national power.

Sources: Somalia Today: opposition response; Garowe Online: term ruling; NIEBC: election dates; Somalia Today: government objections; JURIST: legal account; Goobjoog: swearing-in and dispute; SONNA: swearing-in.