Former Somali Supreme Court Chief Justice Dr Baashe Yusuf Ahmed has renewed his challenge to the decision removing him from office, arguing that judges cannot be dismissed in the same way as ordinary government employees.
Speaking at a press conference, Baashe said the judiciary is an independent constitutional institution that must be protected from political pressure and interference by other branches of government.
He stressed that such safeguards are particularly important when judges are handling cases involving powerful state institutions or senior government officials.
His remarks come amid an escalating legal and political dispute following President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s decision to remove him and the Supreme Court’s subsequent rejection of that move.
The controversy has unfolded alongside a wider dispute over constitutional amendments and Somalia’s electoral framework.
Hassan Sheikh removed Baashe on November 4, 2026, and appointed lawyer Ibrahim Idle Suleiman as the new chief justice.
The Presidency said the decision followed complaints about transparency and the performance of the judiciary, reportedly raised by judges, judicial employees and legal professionals.
The central legal question, however, is whether the president had the constitutional authority to remove the Supreme Court chief justice and whether the procedures required by law were followed.
Baashe maintains that his dismissal was unconstitutional and violated the safeguards intended to preserve judicial independence.
His argument is rooted in the separation of powers. Judges are not ordinary civil servants directly subject to the executive’s administrative control.
They hold constitutional responsibilities that require them to make decisions independently, including in cases involving the government itself.
This raises a fundamental question: if the executive can remove a senior judge while the court is considering a case involving the government, what safeguards can ensure that the judiciary remains free from political influence?
The legality of the dismissal must nevertheless be determined by reference to the Constitution and applicable legal procedures. The positions taken by either side do not, on their own, provide a final legal determination.
The dispute has become more sensitive because Baashe’s removal came while the Supreme Court was handling a case challenging constitutional amendments.
The case was filed by former president Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and opposition figures opposed to the changes.
On November 5, the Supreme Court issued a statement declaring Baashe’s removal invalid, arguing that it violated the Constitution and the principle of judicial independence.
The development turned the wider constitutional dispute into a direct confrontation between the Presidency and the country’s highest court, raising questions about the respective powers of the executive and judiciary.
The government and opposition have offered sharply different explanations for the dispute. The Presidency has described the leadership change as part of efforts to reform the judiciary and improve transparency in the justice system.
Opposition figures, meanwhile, have condemned the decision, arguing that it threatens the independence of the courts.
Former president Sheikh Sharif has also criticised Baashe’s removal and the developments surrounding the Supreme Court.
Defence Minister Ahmed Moallin Fiqi, for his part, has accused Baashe and judges who supported his position of mishandling the dispute and questioned the court’s approach.
The disagreement therefore goes beyond the leadership of the Supreme Court.
It concerns the constitutional limits of executive authority, the procedures governing the removal of senior judges and the ability of the judiciary to operate independently of political institutions.
Judicial independence is a central safeguard in constitutional governance, ensuring that courts can resolve disputes involving citizens, public institutions and government officials without external pressure.
Clear and lawful procedures for appointing and removing judges are essential to maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Baashe’s latest remarks have renewed debate over whether senior judges can be treated as ordinary government employees or whether their positions are protected by specific constitutional provisions.
The dispute now places the government, the Supreme Court and other political stakeholders under pressure to establish the legal basis for their positions and address the disagreement through constitutional channels.