A landmark ruling by Somalia’s Supreme Court on the terms of office of the president, parliament and federal government could usher in a new period of political and legal uncertainty, intensifying an already deepening dispute over the legitimacy of state institutions and the country’s electoral process.
In its decision issued on Thursday, November 5, 2026, the court ruled that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s term ended on May 15, 2026, while the mandates of both houses of parliament and the federal cabinet expired on April 14, 2026.
The Supreme Court said constitutional amendments adopted earlier this year did not clearly establish whether the revised term limits applied retrospectively to officials who were already in office when the changes were introduced.
It therefore maintained that the current institutions remained subject to the previous four-year terms.
One of the most consequential parts of the ruling is an order requiring Somalia’s political stakeholders to reach an agreement on an acceptable electoral framework within 30 days.
The court also directed that elections be held within 90 days, placing significant pressure on the Federal Government, opposition groups and federal member states to resolve their differences.
The ruling allows the federal cabinet to continue handling the country’s routine administrative affairs but restricts it from taking major decisions beyond its day-to-day responsibilities.
This provision could trigger further debate over the scope of the government’s authority while political negotiations and preparations for new elections are under way.
The court’s decision came just one day after President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud removed Supreme Court Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed and appointed Ibrahim Idle Suleiman as his successor.
The timing of the two developments is likely to attract further attention as the country considers the implications of the ruling and the leadership change at the judiciary.
The decision comes as Somalia continues its military campaign against Al-Shabaab while facing economic pressures and uncertainty over the funding and future support of the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM).
Relations between the Federal Government and some federal member states have also been strained by disagreements over constitutional amendments and the proposed electoral system.
Puntland and Jubaland have previously opposed aspects of the constitutional changes and the government’s approach to organising elections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could strengthen the role of federal member states in negotiations over the country’s political future, particularly because any electoral arrangement is likely to require broader political consensus.
Failure by the Federal Government, regional administrations and opposition groups to agree on a common framework could make it difficult to organise elections accepted by all major stakeholders.
The immediate challenge will therefore be to establish an inclusive political agreement that addresses the competing positions on constitutional authority, electoral arrangements and the mandates of national institutions.
Several developments are expected to shape the next phase of the dispute.
These include the Federal Presidency’s official response to the Supreme Court decision, whether the government and opposition begin negotiations within the court-ordered 30-day period, and how Puntland, Jubaland and other federal member states respond to the ruling.
The East African newspaper reported that the decision had cast uncertainty over the Federal Government’s electoral plans for 2027, as political actors remain divided over the system through which the next elections should be conducted.