From Provisionality to Constitutional Order: Somalia’s Constitutional Completion and the Continuing Reconstruction of the State

By Abdirahman Abshir

For more than a decade, Somalia has governed under a constitutional framework deliberately described as provisional. The Provisional Constitution adopted in 2012 served a vital purpose in the aftermath of state collapse: it provided the legal foundation upon which national institutions could be rebuilt after more than twodecades of conflict and institutional fragmentation.Yet from its inception, the document was understood to be transitional.

Several of its chapters were subject to future review, and key elements of the federal system were left deliberately open to negotiation as Somalia’s political institutions matured.The recent approval by Somalia’s Federal Parliament of the final constitutional amendments therefore represents an important constitutional moment in the country’s modern political history. After fourteen years of review across successive governments, legislatures, and consultative forums, Somalia has moved beyond theprovisional phase of its constitutional order.

The amendments clarify the structure of federal governance, refine the allocation of powers between institutions, and provide a more coherent legal architecture for the Somali state.This transition is not merely the conclusion of a legislative process. It represents the maturation of Somalia’s constitutional reconstruction and the consolidation of a legal framework capable of supporting long-term governance.

Somalia’s Constitutional Journey

Somalia’s constitutional history has followed a complex trajectory shaped by independence, centralization, collapse, and reconstruction.The first Somali constitution was adopted in 1960 following the union of the former British Somaliland Protectorate and the Trust Territory of Somalia administered by Italy. That constitution established a parliamentary republic and was widely considered among the more democratic constitutional systems in post-colonial Africa.

The military takeover of 1969 marked the beginning of a second constitutional phase, culminating in the 1979 constitution under the Somali Democratic Republic. Although the constitution formally maintained institutional structures, governance becameincreasingly centralized within the executive.The collapse of the Somali state in 1991 effectively suspended constitutional governance.

For more than a decade Somalia lacked a functioning national constitutional order and instead relied on transitional political arrangements negotiated through regional and international peace processes.The Transitional Federal Charter adopted in 2004 marked the beginning of Somalia’s modern constitutional reconstruction. It introduced federalism as a framework for rebuilding the Somali state while acknowledging the emergence of regional governance structures during the years of state collapse.

The 2012 Provisional Constitution represented the next decisive step. It restored permanent national institutions and created the Federal Government of Somalia.However, the document intentionally left several institutional questions unresolved, including the detailed allocation of powers within the federal system and the constitutional status of local government.

The amendments now adopted by the Federal Parliament complete that constitutional review process and clarify many of the structural issues that remained open.

Federalism as the Architecture of State Reconstruction

Federalism has been at the center of Somalia’s state-building project since the early stages of constitutional reconstruction.In the aftermath of state collapse, a return to a highly centralized political system was widely viewed as politically untenable.Federalism offered a framework capable of reconciling national unity with regional autonomy.Yet federal systems require careful constitutional design.

Without clear institutional rules governing relations between levels of government, federal arrangements can become a source of political instability rather than a mechanism for managing diversity.The constitutional amendments contribute to addressing this challenge by clarifying Somalia’s federal architecture. The constitution now explicitly recognizes three levels of government: the Federal Government, the Federal Member States, and local governments.

The formal constitutional recognition of local government is significant.It reinforces the principle that governance in a federal system should operate as close to citizens as possible while remaining integrated within the broader constitutional order.This approach mirrors developments in several other constitutional systems across Africa. Kenya’s 2010 constitution, for example, created a system of devolved county governments designed to bring public authority closer to citizens while maintaining a strong national constitutional framework.

Similarly, South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution established a system of cooperative governance between national,provincial, and local institutions.Somalia’s constitutional reforms reflect a similar recognition that sustainable governance requires both national cohesion and decentralized authority.

Allocating Powers in the Federation

Perhaps the most structurally important aspect of the amendments is the development of a clearer framework for allocating powers within the federation.The constitution now distinguishes between exclusive federal powers, shared powers exercised jointly by federal and state institutions, powers reserved to Federal Member States, and powers belonging to local governments. It also addresses residual powers and the delegation of authority between levels of government.

Such a classification of powers is a hallmark of mature federal systems. In Germany, India, and Ethiopia, for example, constitutional schedules clearly distinguish federal and regional competencies in order to minimize jurisdictional conflict. In the Somali context, this clarification is particularly significant.

During the early years of federal governance, disputes over jurisdiction between federal and state institutions often created political tensions and continue to so. A clearer constitutional allocation of powers provides a legal framework through which such disputes can be resolved through constitutional interpretation rather than political confrontation.

For legal practitioners within government institutions, including those working in theareas of diplomacy and treaty law, the clarification of constitutional authority is equally important. International agreements, development partnerships, and crossborder cooperation must all operate within the constitutional structure of the state.

A more clearly defined federal framework strengthens the ability of the Somali state to ensure that its international engagements are consistent with domestic constitutionallaw.

Strengthening Federal Institutions

The amendments also enhance the institutional role of the Upper House of the Federal Parliament. In federal systems, second chambers often function as mechanisms for representing the interests of constituent units within national governance.Somalia’s Upper House now plays a more prominent role in overseeing federal-state relations, participating in the formation of Federal Member States, and contributing to the resolution of disputes between different levels of government.

This development reflects a broader principle of federal governance: stability within a federation requires institutions capable of mediating between national authority and a regional representation.

The Constitutional Status of the Capital

The governance of Mogadishu has long occupied a complex place within Somalia’s constitutional debates. As the seat of national government, the capital performs functions that extend beyond those of a typical municipality.The revised constitutional provisions provide a clearer framework for the governance of Mogadishu and the Banaadir region.

The amendments recognize a representative local administration while maintaining the Federal Government’s responsibility for matters of national significance within the capital including its security.This arrangement resembles models found in several other federal systems. Cities such as Washington, D.C., Abuja, and Brasília operate under special constitutional arrangements reflecting their dual roles as municipal jurisdictions and seats of national government.

Clarifying the governance of the capital therefore contributes to the broader effort to stabilize Somalia’s institutional architecture.

Constitutional Order and International Legitimacy

The consolidation of Somalia’s constitutional framework carries significance beyond domestic governance. Constitutional stability is also an important dimension of international legal legitimacy.Within the international system, states derive not only sovereignty but also credibility from the existence of stable constitutional institutions capable of exercising authority within defined legal frameworks.

For countries emerging from prolonged conflict or institutional disruption, the establishment of a coherent constitutional order is often an essential step in rebuilding international confidence.Somalia’s constitutional completion therefore strengthens the country’s capacity to engage with international partners, participate in regional organizations, and fulfill its obligations under international law.

For institutions responsible for managing the country’s international legal engagements, including treaty negotiation and implementation, a clearer constitutional framework reinforces the principle that Somalia’s external relations areanchored in a stable system of domestic law.

From Constitutional Completion to Constitutional Practice

The completion of Somalia’s constitutional review process does not resolve every political question facing the country. Federal-state relations will continue to evolve, electoral reforms will require continued institutional development, and the implementation of constitutional provisions will demand sustained legislative and administrative effort.

Yet the importance of this moment lies in the transition from a constitutional framework defined by provisional arrangements to one grounded in a more stable legal order. Across Africa and beyond, the endurance of constitutional systems ultimately depends not only on the text of the constitution but also on the political culture that develops around it. Constitutional governance requires institutions willing to operate within the limits of law and political actors committed to resolving disputes through constitutional mechanisms.Somalia now enters that phase of its constitutional journey.

The Constitutional Debate and the Question of Legitimacy

No constitutional transition occurs without contestation. Somalia’s constitutional amendments have been no exception. Critics of the process, including some parliamentarians and leaders from certain Federal Member States, have argued that the amendments were adopted without sufficient consultation, that parliamentary procedures were flawed, and that the process risks upsetting the delicate federalbalance established in 2012.

In federal constitutional systems, legitimacy does not arise solely from the adoption of legal texts; it also depends on whether citizens and political actors believe the constitutional order reflects a broadly shared national compact. Debate and disagreement over constitutional reform are therefore not signs of constitutionalfailure but of constitutional politics itself.

However, it is important to distinguish between political disagreement with constitutional outcomes and claims that constitutional procedures themselves were violated. The Somali constitutional review process did not occur outside the constitutional framework. It was conducted through institutions explicitly mandatedby the constitution itself: the Independent Constitutional Review and Implementation Commission (ICRIC), the Parliamentary Oversight Committee on Constitutional Review, and ultimately the Federal Parliament, which retains the authority to amend the constitution through the procedures established within the constitutional text.

Federal constitutions across the world, from India to Ethiopia and from South Africa to Germany, allow constitutional amendments to proceed even in the presence of political disagreement among constituent units.

Federal consensus is politically desirable, but it is rarely unanimous. Constitutional law therefore relies on institutional procedures rather than absolute unanimity as the mechanism through which constitutional change becomes legally valid.In Somalia’s case, the constitutional amendments were debated over multiple parliamentary terms and were ultimately approved by the Federal Parliament in accordance with the amendment procedures provided within the constitutional framework.

While political actors may dispute aspects of the process, the legal authority to amend the constitution rests with the institutions designated by the constitution itself.For this reason, claims that the amendments represent a wholesale violation of constitutional law risk conflating political opposition with constitutional illegality.

Constitutional systems are designed precisely to provide lawful procedures through which disagreement can be resolved within institutions rather than outside them.

Federal Consensus and Constitutional Practice

A second line of criticism asserts that the constitutional amendments lack legitimacy because some Federal Member States chose not to participate in parts of the process.This argument raises an important question about the nature of federal constitutional change.In federations around the world, constitutional amendments often proceed despite disagreement among constituent units.

The adoption of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, Ethiopia’s federal constitution in 1995, and South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution in 1996 all occurred amid intense political disagreements among different actors within those states. Yet constitutional systems cannot require unanimous consent for every institutional reform without effectively rendering constitutional change impossible.Somalia’s constitutional framework recognizes this reality.

While federal consultation is an essential component of constitutional politics, the constitution ultimately vests amendment authority in the Federal Parliament. The Upper House, representing Federal Member States, forms part of this legislative structure precisely to ensure that federal interests are incorporated into national constitutional decision-making.

The absence of some political actors from particular stages of the process is therefore politically significant, but it does not automatically invalidate the constitutional authority of the institutions that carried the process forward.

More importantly, constitutional systems are not static settlements but evolving political orders. Federal-state relations in Somalia will continue to evolve through political negotiation, legislation, judicial interpretation, and institutional practice. The constitutional amendments should therefore be seen not as the final word on federalgovernance but as a framework within which future dialogue and adjustment will continue.

Constitutionalism Beyond the Moment of Adoption

Ultimately, the legitimacy of any constitution is not determined solely at the moment it is adopted. It is determined over time through the way institutions operate under it. Across the world, constitutional systems gain legitimacy through consistent application of constitutional rules, peaceful resolution of disputes through legal institutions, and the gradual development of political practices that respect constitutional limits.

Somalia’s constitutional completion therefore marks not the end of constitutional debate but the beginning of a new phase in which the constitution will be tested through practice. Federal institutions will interpret and apply its provisions, courts will adjudicate constitutional disputes, and political actors will continue to negotiate the evolving balance between federal and state authority.

In this sense, constitutional legitimacy is ultimately a product of constitutional practice.Somalia’s constitutional order, like those of many other states emerging from conflict or political transformation, will mature through time. The amendments adopted by the Federal Parliament provide a clearer institutional framework within which that maturation can occur.Lastly, it is worth noting that after decades in which the Somali state was defined by transitional arrangements and institutional uncertainty, Somalia has now crossed an important constitutional threshold.

The provisional framework that guided the early years of reconstruction has now given way to a more settled constitutional order.The task ahead is not merely to defend the constitution as a legal document, but to ensure that it becomes the durable foundation of Somalia’s democratic and federal governance.

Goobjoog News is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor or any other article of interest to our readers. We’d be glad to hear what you think about this article or any other article in our opinion sections.

Abdirahman Abshir is the Director of the Legal and Treaties Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Federal Republic of Somalia. He previously served as a legal officer and researcher at the Supreme Court of Somalia.