The conflict between the highest institutions of the Somali government has entered a new phase after the Office of the Attorney General of the State opposed the decision issued by the Supreme Court regarding the constitutional dispute and the term limits of government institutions.
This development comes at a time when the Supreme Court issued critical rulings on November 5, 2026, concerning the removal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Baashe Yuusuf Axmed, as well as the dispute arising from constitutional amendments and the extension of federal institutional mandates.
The conflict now touches upon constitutional interpretation, the powers of state institutions, and who holds ultimate authority in interpreting constitutional matters.
The Office of the Attorney General of Somalia opposed the decision rendered by Supreme Court judges regarding the lawsuit concerning constitutional amendments and the term limits of federal government institutions, which could further exacerbate the country’s legal and political crisis.
The Supreme Court ruling, delivered on November 5, 2026, addresses the term limits of the President, the Federal Parliament, and the government, with the judges also proposing that political stakeholders reach an agreement on the electoral framework within 30 days and hold elections within 90 days.
The stance against that decision by the Office of the Attorney General comes as the federal government and the Supreme Court remain at odds over constitutional interpretation, institutional powers, and the legitimacy of term extensions.
The Supreme Court stated in its ruling that the term of office for both houses of the Federal Parliament and the government expired on April 14, 2026, while the mandate of the President of the Federal Republic concluded on May 15, 2026.
The judges also ruled that the constitutional amendment extending terms of office to five years cannot be retroactively applied to institutions in office when the amendment was enacted.
The court stated that the federal government may continue daily administrative operations of the interim administration, but cannot take actions beyond routine governance.
It ordered political actors to reach an agreement on elections within 30 days, with elections to be conducted within 90 days.
This decision directly contradicts the federal government’s electoral timetable, which had scheduled parliamentary elections for April 2027, while the presidential election was set for May 2027.
The Office of the Attorney General of the State is the legal institution tasked with advising the government and defending state interests and involved bodies when legal disputes arise before the courts.
Its responsibilities include providing legal advice to the government and defending it in lawsuits to which it is a party.
Consequently, its stance on the Supreme Court ruling is pivotal to how the government approaches the constitutional dispute.
The office previously participated in the constitutional case, following the Supreme Court’s October request for written submissions regarding constitutional amendments.
However, the specific legal arguments employed by the Office of the Attorney General to reject the ruling—such as the constitutional articles cited and the rationale for deeming the judgment flawed—have not yet been fully verified.
Therefore, a distinction must be made between the rejection of the ruling and the legal arguments underpinning that rejection.
This development coincides with a separate dispute sparked by the removal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Baashe Yuusuf Axmed.
President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud announced Baashe’s dismissal on November 4, appointing former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ibrahim Idle Suleiman to the post.
The presidency justified the move citing grievances regarding judicial administration and the necessity of reforming justice institutions.
However, the Supreme Court announced on November 5 that Baashe’s dismissal was illegal, stating that the President lacks unilateral authority to remove the Chief Justice without adhering to constitutional procedures.
Consequently, two interconnected disputes now exist: one regarding who legally leads the Supreme Court, and another concerning the court’s ruling on institutional term limits.
The conflict between the Office of the Attorney General and the Supreme Court demonstrates that the constitutional dispute has moved beyond political debate to directly impact inter-institutional relations.
Should the parties remain entrenched in their respective constitutional interpretations, establishing a legally binding framework acceptable to all sides will prove challenging.
Clarifying how the court’s ruling will be handled is equally important, as disputes over its implementation could generate legal and administrative uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the federal government must clearly articulate the legal arguments underpinning its position, while the judiciary is expected to operate with independence and transparent legal procedures.
The current dispute is anticipated to prompt further legal and political maneuvers. These include the Attorney General detailing the grounds for opposing the ruling, the federal government clarifying its stance on its implementation, and political stakeholders initiating dialogue regarding elections.
Additionally, establishing legal clarity on who leads the Supreme Court will be crucial to preventing leadership disputes from compromising judicial operations and pending court cases.
Opposition leaders and the Future Council have previously addressed the Supreme Court’s rulings, calling for the preservation of judicial independence and the separation of powers.
The Attorney General’s opposition to the Supreme Court decision unfolds as Somalia faces a constitutional crisis impacting the Presidency, Parliament, the federal government, and judicial bodies.
The core priority remains clarifying the legal arguments of both factions and establishing a resolution mechanism that does not compromise judicial independence or institutional governance.