In addition, I suffer from asthma, which has caused me significant hardship. As I have repeatedly stated, I have not received the medical care that my condition requires. I therefore request immediate access to an independent doctor to assess my health and ensure that I receive the medication, treatment, and living conditions necessary for my well-being.

I have been in detention since 12 April 2026, and on 14 April I was transferred to Mogadishu Central Prison. On 25 June 2026, the Banadir Regional Court sentenced me to three years’ imprisonment. I do not admit, and have never admitted, committing any crime. I believe I am being persecuted because of my peaceful statements and opinions that I have expressed, and that the judgment against me was not the product of an independent judicial process free from pressure or interference.

I believe that I have been deprived of my rights that were guaranteed to me under the Constitution. I feel that state power has been wrongly used against me and that I am being punished for expressing my views. Nevertheless, I do not want my case to become a tool for political confrontation, social conflict, or clan disputes. I do not want any individual or group to use my case to advance their own agenda in ways that could further complicate my situation. I ask only that my case be decided according to the law, credible evidence, and justice.

My Concerns About the Handling of My Case

My case was initially assigned to a judge whom I expected would hear it independently. I was later informed that the case file was taken over by the Chairman of the Banadir Regional Court, who also became the judge responsible for delivering the judgment against me. I believe this raises legitimate questions about the impartiality and independence that can reasonably be expected when a court president presides over a case brought by the very government that appointed him.

I Am Not Seeking a Presidential Pardon

I wish to make my position absolutely clear. I am not seeking a presidential pardon because I do not admit to committing any offence. A pardon is generally sought by someone who pleads guilty and asks to have a sentence forgiven or reduced. Instead, I seek a fair trial and a judgment based on the law and reliable evidence. I also seek an independent appeal that thoroughly reviews the way my case was handled, the evidence presented, the procedural safeguards afforded to me, and the legal reasoning behind my conviction.

I do not want emotional rhetoric or exaggerated statements that could damage my appeal.

I do not want my case to be reduced to clan politics or tribal divisions, which would only make my situation more difficult.

I do not want anyone to be abused or harmed because of my case.

Justice is a public trust and the foundation of every individual, family, society, and state. The judiciary must remain independent from political, social, economic, and clan-based pressure.

As Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

Indeed, Allah commands you to return trusts to their rightful owners; and when you judge between people, judge with fairness. What a noble commandment from Allah to you! Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Quran: 4:58)

Judicial office is not merely an authority to pass judgment; it is a responsibility entrusted by both God and society. Judges must treat all people equally, regardless of power, wealth, clan identity, public office, or personal connections. Before delivering judgment, a judge should remember that the person standing before the court has a dignity, a family, children, a life, and constitutional rights deserving of protection.

What I Am Asking For

In summary, I respectfully request the following:

1. A prompt and independent appeal. I ask that my appeal be heard without delay by an independent court that impartially reviews the judgment, the evidence, and the procedures followed during my trial.
2. An impartial judge. I seek a judge whose decisions are not influenced by the wishes or interests of other officials, and who does not fear losing their position for upholding the law and justice.
3. A clear separation between court administration and judge making the decision. I request that my appeal be assigned to a judge who does not simultaneously hold senior administrative responsibilities that could create actual or perceived pressure. Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
4. Full access to my case file for my lawyers. My legal team should be provided with the complete written judgment, all prosecution evidence, and the records and transcripts of the court proceedings.
5. Immediate medical care. I request an examination by an independent doctor and access to the treatment, medication, and healthcare my condition requires.
6. Consideration of my child’s best interests. The court should carefully consider my infant child’s need for breastfeeding, maternal care, and the impact my absence may have on my child’s health and development. My child is not a party to this case and should not suffer an indirect punishment for circumstances beyond their control.
7. A transparent public appeal hearing. I request that my appeal hearing be open to the public, where permitted by law, so that the proceedings can be observed and public rumors or conflicting reports can be minimized.
8. A judiciary free from social media pressure. I ask for judges who decide cases based on the law and evidence, free from the influence of Facebook, TikTok, or other social media platforms. Judicial decisions should never be driven by popularity, public approval, or the desire to satisfy those in positions of power, but solely by justice and the rule of law.
9. No retaliation in my name. I ask my supporters not to insult others or blame entire families or clans because of my case. I reject responding to injustice with further injustice. My conscience tells me that a victim cannot seek justice by victimizing innocent people.

Freedom of Expression and the Responsibility of the State

Citizens have the right to criticize their government, question its policies, and speak about unemployment, discrimination, corruption, poverty, and unequal opportunities. Freedom of expression does not place anyone above the law. Equally, the law must never become a weapon to silence criticism or intimidate those with less power.

Where a person is accused of unlawful speech, the authorities should clearly identify the specific statements alleged to be unlawful, explain which law they are said to have violated, and demonstrate the harm they caused. The accused must also be given a genuine opportunity to defend themselves.

The reality remains that the state possesses far greater power than an individual who is imprisoned. That is why the greatest responsibility rests with the government and the judiciary, both of which must demonstrate restraint, impartiality, and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

My Message to the Somali People

I ask the Somali public not to turn my case into a source of conflict, clan rivalry, insults, or revenge.

I encourage lawyers, religious scholars, women, mothers, journalists, academics, and human rights organizations to support every person’s right to a fair trial.

I am not asking for support because I belong to a particular clan.

Nor am I asking for support simply because I am a woman.

I ask for support because I am a Somali citizen entitled to justice, healthcare, and an independent judiciary.

Any one of us may one day stand before a court. If an unfair trial is accepted today, another person may face the same injustice tomorrow, until injustice becomes normalized.

Protecting my rights is therefore not only about protecting Sadiyo. It is about protecting the rights of every Somali citizen and safeguarding justice for both present and future generations.

Conclusion

No one should be oppressed through power, imprisonment, violence, intimidation, censorship, or the misuse of the law.

Somalia’s history contains many examples of people imprisoned because of their ideas, their speech, or their political views. My intention is not to compare myself with those who were unjustly treated in the past. Rather, I wish to remind my fellow Somalis that freedom of expression and an independent judiciary are precious values that every generation has a duty to preserve for the next.

By: Sadia Moalin Ali Hassan

Held at the Mogadishu Central Prison

___________

Note: This letter was sent by Sadia from Mogadishu Central Prison through her lawyer, Zakariye Ismail Nur, on 28 June 2026. The translation was done by Kaab TV team. Read the full letter in Somali

The post Sadia Moalin Ali: I Want Justice and an Independent Judiciary appeared first on Kaab TV.

The ruling came after a series of court proceedings that centered on accusations brought by the Office of the Attorney General against the young women’s rights advocate, who has been in detention since April 12, 2026. Her supporters and rights groups have repeatedly questioned both the legal basis of her detention and the manner in which the case was handled.

The second hearing in the case was held on June 23, 2026, after being postponed two days earlier without an official explanation. The postponement came amid a change in the judicial panel, as the judge who presided over the initial hearing was replaced before the proceedings resumed.

During the first hearing on June 1, prosecutors charged Sadia with “insulting state institutions” and “incitement to commit a crime.” The charges stemmed primarily from social media videos in which she criticized former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and members of his family, as well as comments she made regarding the conduct of government institutions.

Defense lawyers argued that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges and maintained that the accusations lacked the detail necessary to establish criminal liability. They contended that Sadia, a mother who earned a living as a tuk-tuk driver, was being prosecuted for exercising her right to express opinions on matters of public interest.

The case took a new turn when a different judge, Salah Ali Mohamud, commonly known as “Salah Dabaan,” presided over the second hearing. The change in judges generated controversy among some of Sadia’s supporters and members of the defense team, who questioned the circumstances surrounding the replacement. Court officials did not publicly explain the reasons for the judicial change.

Access to the courtroom during the second hearing was heavily restricted. Journalists were reportedly barred from entering with cameras and were not permitted to report from inside the courtroom. Some media personnel also stated that they were instructed not to take notes during the proceedings, raising concerns among observers about transparency.

Defense lawyers later alleged that video clips released from the hearing did not accurately reflect the full proceedings and omitted key arguments presented by the defense. They further claimed that certain excerpts circulated online created a misleading impression of what had transpired inside the courtroom.

Throughout the proceedings, prosecutors presented several pieces of evidence, including social media content and interviews allegedly given by Sadia while in detention. Among the issues discussed in court were her public statements regarding conditions in detention facilities and allegations she had made concerning her treatment while in custody.

Sadia told the court that she had been subjected to threats while under detention, including allegations that a police investigator threatened her with sexual violence. She identified the officer by the nickname “Big Show.” The defense argued that these allegations should be independently investigated and called for those responsible, if any wrongdoing occurred, to be held accountable.

Prosecutors also accused her of participating in demonstrations in Mogadishu and of being associated with youth-led activism critical of government policies. Her legal team rejected those claims and insisted that the prosecution had failed to establish any criminal conduct.

The case attracted significant international attention. Several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA Network), expressed concern about her detention and called for her release. Other advocacy groups argued that the case raised broader questions about freedom of expression, due process, and the treatment of detainees in Somalia.

Following more than two months in custody, the Banadir Regional Court ultimately found Sadia guilty and sentenced her to three years in prison. The verdict is expected to remain the subject of legal and public debate, with supporters indicating that they intend to challenge the ruling through the appeals process.

The post Banadir Court Sentences Sadia Moalin Ali to Three Years in Prison appeared first on Kaab TV.

“We call on you and your government to immediately and unconditionally release Sadia Moalim Ali, who has been detained solely for peacefully exercising her human rights,” Amnesty International said in a letter addressed to Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

Sadia Bajaj was arrested on 12 April after being detained by officers of Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) in central Mogadishu.

Known for her work as a female Bajaj (three-wheeler taxi) driver, Sadia has been an outspoken critic of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration, particularly on issues of corruption, nepotism, rising fuel prices, and the increasing cost of living. Through videos shared on social media, she highlighted grievances that also sparked protests by Bajaj drivers in Mogadishu in March this year.

Sadia Moalim Ali, 27, a Bajaj driver and social activist, was arrested in the Hodan district of Mogadishu by NISA officers on 12 April. She was initially held at Hamar Jajab Police Station before being transferred on 14 April to Mogadishu Central Prison, where she remains detained.

She has not been granted access to legal representation, and her family is unaware of any formal charges filed against her. However, informed sources told Amnesty International that police brought her before the Banadir Regional Court, which authorized her detention for up to 90 days pending investigation.

“Her detention stems solely from her peaceful expression of views shared on social media, particularly Facebook and TikTok,” Amnesty said. “She spoke about government criticism, alleged corruption within state institutions, youth unemployment, accusations of favoritism among senior officials, high taxation, and rising fuel prices. In one of her videos, she stated that the President of Somalia would be responsible for any harm that might come to her.”

Allegations of torture

Sources who spoke to Kaab TV, including members of Sadia’s family, said she faced harsh punishment after giving an audio interview to a local Mogadishu radio station in which she stated she had not eaten for four days while in detention at Mogadishu Central Prison.

The audio, broadcast on 20 April, quickly spread across social media platforms.

Following the broadcast, Sadia was reportedly subjected to further punishment and transferred to a disciplinary cell inside the prison, commonly referred to by detainees as the “death room,” where inmates are subjected to severe treatment.

The sources confirmed that she was held in that cell for 48 hours, stripped of her clothing. The punishment was allegedly carried out by prison guards and criminal investigation officers, who also threatened her inside the facility.

This is not the first time Sadia Moalim Ali has been detained over her activism. She was previously arrested on 12 March after participating in a protest against rising fuel prices. She was brought before a court and released four days later. The pattern suggests she has been repeatedly targeted for peacefully exercising her human rights.

Since President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud returned to office in mid-2022, Somalia has witnessed a series of human rights violations, particularly affecting freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Authorities have used arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, detention, threats, and intimidation to silence journalists and activists.

Since 2025, the government has intensified efforts to restrict and censor journalists reporting on public interest issues, particularly security operations and forced evictions in Mogadishu. On 16 March 2025, the Minister of Information issued a directive prohibiting the dissemination of “negative reporting” on government security operations or what authorities described as “false information” regarding such operations.

The post Rights Group Demands Release of Mogadishu Women Activist Sadia Moalim Ali appeared first on Kaab TV.