Attorney General Questions Legality of Somalia Supreme Court Ruling

GOOBJOOG NEWS | MOGADISHU: Somalia’s Office of the Attorney General has rejected a Supreme Court ruling declaring that the mandates of the president and federal parliament had expired, describing the decision as legally flawed and saying it would pursue further legal action.

In a statement issued on Friday, the Attorney General’s Office said the court had failed to address preliminary legal objections submitted by the government before issuing its decision in a case challenging the constitutional amendment process and the extension of federal institutions’ terms.

The office said its objections concerned the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and whether former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who filed the petition, had the legal standing to bring the challenge.

It argued that the court should have first determined those questions and, if it rejected the objections, scheduled a hearing to allow both parties to present their arguments in accordance with Articles 69 and 88 of Somalia’s Civil Procedure Code.

The Attorney General also questioned the composition of the judicial panel, arguing that the Supreme Court chief justice should have presided over the judges handling the case.

It further accused the court of introducing an issue that was not part of the original petition, saying this violated Article 77 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 24 of Law No. 23 of 2016.

The office maintained that the court’s statement had no legal effect and said it would take what it described as appropriate legal measures.

The dispute follows a November 5 decision by five Supreme Court judges in a case brought by Sharif, who challenged the constitutional amendments adopted earlier this year and their implications for the mandates of federal institutions.

The court ruled that the amendments extending presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years could not be applied retrospectively to the current officeholders. It said President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s mandate expired in May 2026, while the terms of the two houses of parliament ended in April.

The judges also directed political stakeholders to agree on an electoral framework within 30 days and hold elections within 90 days. The court rejected the part of Sharif’s petition challenging the constitutional amendment process itself, citing questions over his legal standing, but upheld the challenge to the extension of the current institutions’ mandates.

The ruling directly challenges the federal government’s position that constitutional changes approved by parliament in March allow the current administration to remain in office until May 2027. The government had planned parliamentary elections for April 15, 2027, followed by a presidential election on May 15.

The legal confrontation has also widened following President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s announcement on November 4 that he had dismissed Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed and appointed Ibrahim Idle Suleiman as his replacement. The Supreme Court subsequently declared the dismissal null and void, arguing that the president lacked the authority to remove the chief justice through the procedure used.

The competing positions have deepened uncertainty over Somalia’s political transition, with the government and opposition yet to reach agreement on constitutional changes, the electoral framework and the future of the current federal leadership.