Former Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s warning that the government will disarm anyone who takes up arms comes at a time when Somalia is facing heightened political and security tensions.

Hassan Sheikh warned opposition groups against taking up arms, saying those who choose violence would be confronted in the same manner as Al-Shabaab and ISIS.

The remarks have raised a broader question: Can Somalia realistically pursue forced disarmament at a time when political tensions remain high and security institutions are still divided?

The first distinction is between political opposition and armed militant groups. Al-Shabaab and ISIS are armed organizations that the Somali government officially considers security threats and is fighting militarily.

Political opposition, however, is part of the political system as long as it operates peacefully and does not engage in armed violence.

Using force to disarm politicians simply because they oppose the government could therefore deepen political tensions and undermine the space for peaceful political competition.

If an individual or group takes up arms and launches attacks against the government or civilians, the situation becomes different. Such cases should be addressed through the law and the country’s security and justice institutions.

In principle, disarmament is possible, but attempting to impose it by force in the current environment would be extremely difficult without a political agreement and a clear legal framework.

Somalia continues to face multiple security challenges, including Al-Shabaab, ISIS elements, local armed groups and clan militias.

At the same time, political disagreements persist between the Federal Government and some federal member states, while disputes over elections, the constitution and the distribution of political and security powers remain unresolved.

In such an environment, an attempt by one political side to forcibly disarm another could trigger further confrontation. Opposition groups could mobilize supporters, potentially creating new political alliances or even armed confrontations.

A more sustainable approach would involve political dialogue, a unified national security structure, gradual and lawful disarmament, reintegration of those who surrender weapons, and a coordinated campaign against Al-Shabaab and ISIS.

Disarming Al-Shabaab cannot realistically happen overnight. It requires a combination of military pressure, intelligence capabilities, effective governance, public services and political stability.

If Hassan Sheikh is advocating long-term disarmament, the process would need to be based on law, political consensus and clear rules that apply equally to all sides.

Otherwise, a campaign presented as disarmament could instead become another source of political conflict in an already fragile security environment.

High-level political talks between the Somali Federal Government and the opposition coalition opened in Mogadishu on Tuesday, in what is being widely viewed as one of the most consequential negotiations in recent years over the country’s electoral process, constitutional dispute, and political transition.

The closed-door meeting is taking place under an unprecedented international mediation and guarantee framework, with Turkey, ambassadors from several Western countries, the European Union, and the United Nations directly participating as facilitators and observers. Journalists have not been granted access to the negotiations.

The involvement of major international partners reflects growing concern over Somalia’s prolonged political impasse and increasing pressure on both sides to reach a comprehensive agreement on elections, constitutional reforms, and the country’s broader political future.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, the negotiations are centered on several critical issues, including the framework for the next national elections, constitutional disagreements, power-sharing arrangements, and the management of Somalia’s ongoing political transition.

The talks come amid heightened political tensions following months of disputes over electoral reforms and governance. Domestic political actors and international partners have repeatedly urged Somali leaders to resolve their differences through dialogue and consensus in order to prevent further instability.

The Future Council, which brings together Puntland, Jubaland, and the National Salvation Forum, enters the negotiations with significantly greater political leverage than in previous rounds. The coalition has increasingly been recognized by international partners as a key stakeholder whose participation is considered essential to any sustainable political settlement.

That recognition marks a notable shift from the Federal Government’s earlier position, which had resisted granting the opposition formal political status in negotiations concerning Somalia’s future governance.

Observers say the active role being played by Turkey and Western partners is intended not only to facilitate dialogue but also to provide international guarantees that any agreements reached will be implemented, rather than remaining political commitments without enforcement.

Diplomatic analysts also view the meeting as evidence that Somalia’s political crisis has entered a new phase, where major national decisions are increasingly being shaped through international engagement alongside domestic negotiations.

The outcome of the talks is expected to have far-reaching implications for Somalia’s electoral roadmap, constitutional reforms, institutional legitimacy, and political stability. With deep divisions remaining between the government and opposition, many observers consider the negotiations a critical opportunity to prevent further political polarization and lay the groundwork for a broader national consensus on the country’s future.