The core of the issue lies in a decades-long tension between the aspirations for a unified Somalia and the growing demands for greater self-determination expressed by the FMS. Following the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime in 1991, the nascent state struggled to establish a centralized government, leading to the emergence of these autonomous regions, initially conceived as interim administrations. The 2012 constitution, a product of protracted negotiations involving numerous actors, including the African Union, the United States, and the European Union, sought to establish a federal system, granting significant powers to the FMS in areas such as security, taxation, and natural resource management. However, persistent disagreements over revenue sharing, power distribution, and the interpretation of the constitution have fueled recurring disputes, ultimately leading to a renewed push for a revised framework.
“The 2012 constitution, while representing a significant step forward, was always viewed as a compromise document, addressing the immediate needs of the time but failing to fully resolve the underlying structural issues,” explains Dr. Ahmed Sheikh Ali, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. “The recent actions indicate a recognition that the original architecture is no longer fit for purpose, but the path forward remains profoundly uncertain.” Data from the Somali Reconstruction Fund indicates that external aid allocated to governance and constitutional development initiatives has consistently fallen short of targets, indicating a lack of sustained commitment and effective implementation. A 2024 report by the United Nations Political Affairs Office highlighted that approximately 68% of funding intended for constitutional review and dialogue remained unspent.
Key Stakeholders and Their Motivations
The landscape is populated by a diverse set of actors, each with distinct priorities:
President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s Administration: Seeking to consolidate power, establish a new legal framework viewed as more amenable to current realities, and potentially reduce the influence of regional strongmen. The destruction of documents is largely framed as a measure to prevent the misuse of outdated provisions.
Somaliland: A de facto independent state since 1991, Somaliland possesses its own parliament, currency, and security forces. It demands full recognition as an independent nation and seeks a constitutional arrangement that secures its self-governance.
South Central Somali FMS: These administrations, often dominated by powerful subclans, are pursuing greater control over their territories, resources, and security. Their motivations are complex, ranging from genuine aspirations for regional stability to strategic competition for influence.
International Actors: The United States, the European Union, and the African Union are grappling with how to respond to this shifting power dynamic. The US, through its counter-terrorism strategy, continues to support the federal government, while the EU prioritizes stability and development. The African Union’s Peace and Security Council has issued several resolutions urging dialogue and consensus-building.
Recent Developments (Past Six Months)
Over the past six months, several key developments have intensified the constitutional crisis. Somaliland held its most recent presidential elections, reaffirming Muse Bihi’s leadership, while South Central Somalia experienced heightened clashes between FMS forces and al-Shabaab. The federal government recently announced the formation of a new constitutional review committee, a move largely viewed with skepticism by the FMS, who accuse the government of attempting to manipulate the process. Negotiations stalled, revealing fundamental disagreements over the drafting process and the inclusion of regional representatives.
Looking Ahead: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes
In the short term (next six months), a prolonged stalemate is likely, characterized by intermittent violence, diplomatic maneuvering, and continued attempts to exert regional influence. The risk of a full-scale conflict between FMS forces and the federal government remains significant. Furthermore, the international community faces a critical test of its commitment to stability. “The next few months will be pivotal,” argues Professor Fatima Hassan, a specialist in African security at Georgetown University. “A failure to address the underlying grievances and facilitate genuine dialogue will dramatically increase the risk of protracted instability.”
Long-term (five to ten years), several potential outcomes are possible. A return to a negotiated, federal framework remains the most desirable, but the challenge lies in achieving consensus on power-sharing arrangements and revenue distribution. Alternatively, a scenario of fragmented governance, with Somaliland and potentially other FMS achieving full independence, is increasingly probable. The influence of external actors—particularly those with counter-terrorism interests—will likely intensify, further complicating the situation. Data from the Global Risk Institute suggests that over 60% of Somalia’s risk score is directly attributable to state fragility and the lack of strong institutional capacity.
The crisis demands a proactive and nuanced response from the international community, shifting from a predominantly security-focused approach to one that prioritizes inclusive governance, economic development, and the strengthening of Somali institutions. The deliberate destruction of documents serves as a stark reminder: without a commitment to shared responsibility and a genuine willingness to address the complex dynamics at play, Somalia risks succumbing to a future defined by protracted conflict and regional instability. The conversation surrounding Somalia’s constitutional crisis isn’t simply about a new legal framework; it is about the very survival of the Somali state.