Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
1. The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs acknowledges the statementissued on 12 November 2026 by United Nations human rights expertsconcerning the judiciary in Somalia.
2. The Government values its engagement with the United Nations human rightsmechanisms and the constructive role of independent experts, and it takes theconcerns raised seriously. It reaffirms its commitment to the independence ofthe judiciary, the rule of law and constitutional supremacy, which it regards asfundamental pillars of a constitutional State.
3. Regrettably, the experts did not seek clarification from the State beforeissuing their statement, as the Code of Conduct for Special ProceduresMandate-holders of the Human Rights Council requires. Articles 6(a)–(b) and13(a) of the Code call for an impartial assessment of the facts based on reliableinformation, which presupposes that the State concerned is first heard.
4. The Permanent Mission of Somalia in Geneva received an email from theexperts requesting an emergency meeting. The Mission asked for an officialletter setting out the key issues for discussion, so that it could inform thecapital. No letter or list of issues was received. Instead, the experts shared theirpress release by email after it had already been published.
5. Somalia is undergoing a transition from the previous constitutional order tothe system established under the 2026 Constitution, and not all of theinstitutions it contemplates have yet been established, including the HighCouncil of the Judiciary. The Government does not regard the matters raisedas a confrontation between the executive and the judiciary, or as a disputebetween individuals. It regards them as a constitutional and institutionalquestion in which judicial independence, constitutional supremacy, properjurisdiction, procedural fairness and the continuity of the State must beprotected together.
6. The former Chief Justice was removed from office on 4 November 2026through the transitional process by which he was first nominated. That processapplied the same procedure as at his original appointment, when the HighCouncil of the Judiciary had likewise not been fully constituted. The decisionwas taken within the transitional framework and is unconnected to thedeliberations of the Supreme Court in the constitutional.
7. Subsequently, the former Chief Justice announced, in the name of theSupreme Court, pronouncements presented as a ruling. By then his removalhad taken effect, and he no longer held the mandate of Chief Justice. A rulingof the Court can be issued only by a lawfully constituted bench presided overby a Chief Justice who holds that mandate. The Government therefore doesnot recognise the pronouncements as a ruling of the Court. They have no legalbasis and were made after his removal from office.
8. The State was represented in the constitutional proceedings before theSupreme Court (case no. MS/DST/1/2026) by the Office of the State AttorneyGeneral (the Office). Before the merits were addressed, the Office raisedobjections concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the claimant’s standingto bring the claim.
9. In its statement of 6 November 2026, the Office set out its position on thepronouncements. It noted that:(a) the preliminary objections were notanswered before the merits were addressed;(b) the parties were not heard inadversarial proceedings at a public hearing, as the Somali Civil ProcedureCode (Articles 69 and 88), read with Article 24 of Law No. 23 of 27 June2016, requires;(c) the composition of the bench did not comply with Article24(5) of that Law, under which the case must be presided over by the ChiefJustice; and(d) the Court created a new claim that had not been brought beforeit, contrary to Article 77 of the Code.
10. These objections do not reject judicial review. They reflect the principle that acourt must establish its jurisdiction, its lawful composition and theadmissibility of a claim before determining the substance of a dispute, and thatthese safeguards apply equally to all parties.
11. Without prejudice to that position, the Office also noted that thepronouncements dismissed the challenge to the constitutional amendments onthe ground that the claimant lacked standing yet went on to determine theconsequences of those amendments for the terms of office and powers ofexisting constitutional institutions. This raises a legal question about therelationship between standing, the scope of the proceedings and the reliefgranted. The Government regards it as a question of law, not a politicalobjection to the outcome.
12. For these reasons, the Office concluded that the pronouncements do notcomply with the law, and the Government considers them null and void andwithout legal effect. The Office has stated that it will take the appropriate legalsteps. The Government notes that the pronouncements did not invalidate the2026 Constitution. It will pursue its position through lawful and institutionalmeans, without pressure on any judge or interference with the performance ofjudicial functions. proceedings.
13. The Government remains open to dialogue with the United Nations expertsand is ready to provide further information, including the statement of theOffice of 6 November 2026. It also encourages dialogue among all politicaland institutional actors, in accordance with the Constitution and in the interestof stability, the rule of law and the continued strengthening of Somalia’sinstitutions.
