Somalia AG rejects Supreme Court decision on President Mohamud's term end

Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and State Attorney General Sulayman Mohamed.

Somalia’s State Attorney General Sulayman Mohamed has said that the Federal Government rejects a November 5, 2026, Supreme Court decision on the country’s constitutional amendments and the tenure of elected institutions.

Mohamed set out constitutional and legal grounds for the objection, arguing that the apex court judges failed to follow prescribed judicial procedures.

In a statement, he cited provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Procedure Code and Law No. 23 of June 27, 2016, to explain why his office considers the decision as legally defective.

His statement comes amid a deepening political dispute over the interpretation of constitutional amendments, the expiry of the mandates of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Parliament.

Also in dispute are the arrangements for the country’s next presidential election.

The Supreme Court found that Mohamud’s term ended on May 15 and the mandates of both houses of parliament and the federal cabinet expired on April 14.

It also directed elections to be held within 90 days, but the AG said that these directives have no legal effect.

They also limited the federal government to routine administrative functions pending the elections.

The government, however, has maintained that constitutional amendments approved in 2026 extended the mandates of federal institutions from four to five years, allowing the current administration to remain in office until May 2027.

According to Mohamed, the court should have determined the preliminary objections that they filed concerning its jurisdiction and the legal standing of former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who filed the proceedings.

“Before considering the merits of the case, the Court was required to rule on the legal objections filed by the Office of the State Attorney General, either by upholding or rejecting them,” the AG said in a statement.

His office argues that the court announced its decision without first determining those objections, which questioned whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether the petitioner was legally entitled to institute the proceedings.

AG Mohamed further maintains that, had the court rejected the objections, it was required to provide both parties with an opportunity to present their arguments at a properly scheduled hearing.

“The Court breached the rules governing its composition because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was required to preside over the panel of judges hearing the case.”

The AG’s office also challenges what it describes as the court’s expansion of the original dispute beyond the issues submitted by the petitioner.

“The case brought before the Court challenged the constitutional amendments. The document circulated on social media declared the procedure for amending the Constitution valid,” the Attorney General states.

He argues that, by making that determination, the judges introduced a new issue that had not been presented for adjudication, contrary to Article 77 of the XHMS, read together with paragraph 1 of Article 24 of Law No. 23 of 2016.

The dispute has been compounded by President Mohamud’s November 4 announcement dismissing Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed, a move the Supreme Court subsequently declared null and void.

The AG’s statement does not specify the legal action the office intends to pursue but says appropriate steps will be taken.

The competing positions have placed Somalia’s constitutional institutions at the centre of a political and legal confrontation, with the next steps likely to determine the country’s electoral timetable and the future of its current federal leadership.