UN Experts Condemn Somalia Chief Justice Dismissal as Judicial Crisis Deepens
The United Nations has strongly condemned the dismissal of Somalia’s Chief Justice, Bashe Yusuf Ahmed, warning that the decision threatens judicial independence and risks deepening the country’s political and constitutional crisis.
In a statement issued on November 12, 2026, UN human rights experts described the removal of Ahmed as unlawful interference with the independence of the judiciary. They called on the Somali government to respect constitutional procedures, reinstate the Chief Justice and guarantee the safety of judges amid growing tensions between the presidency and the Supreme Court.
The controversy has attracted international attention because it emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for Somalia. The Supreme Court was handling a major constitutional dispute involving the terms of office of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and members of the Federal Parliament when the Chief Justice was dismissed.
The experts said the decision to remove Ahmed was announced on November 4, just a day before the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on the disputed extension of presidential and parliamentary terms.
According to the UN experts, the dismissal was carried out through a presidential decree without following the constitutional procedures required for removing the head of the judiciary. They noted that the process should involve the Judicial Services Commission and Parliament rather than being handled unilaterally by the President.
They also criticised the appointment of a replacement shortly after Ahmed’s removal, saying the process failed to respect the legal safeguards designed to protect the independence of the judicial system.
The experts warned that allowing political leaders to remove senior judges without following established procedures could weaken public confidence in the courts and undermine the rule of law.
Their statement was issued by Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism.
A dispute involving the presidency and the Supreme Court
The dispute surrounding Ahmed’s dismissal is closely connected to a wider political disagreement over Somalia’s constitutional arrangements and the duration of the current government’s mandate.
In March 2026, Somalia’s Parliament approved constitutional amendments extending presidential and parliamentary terms from four years to five years. The government maintained that the changes allowed President Mohamud and lawmakers to remain in office until 2027.
However, opposition leaders and other political stakeholders challenged the amendments, arguing that the new provisions should not automatically extend the mandates of leaders who were already serving under the previous constitutional arrangements.
Former Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed subsequently filed a constitutional petition challenging aspects of the changes and their application to the current leadership.
The case placed the Supreme Court at the centre of one of Somalia’s most consequential political disputes in recent years.
On November 5, a five-judge panel ruled that the constitutional amendments did not extend the terms of the sitting President and Parliament. The judges held that the existing four-year mandates remained applicable to the current officeholders.
The court said the President’s term had expired in May 2026, while Parliament’s mandate had expired in April. It directed political stakeholders to agree on an electoral framework within 30 days and ordered elections to be held within 90 days.
The judges also limited the government to routine caretaker responsibilities as the country worked towards an election.
The ruling directly challenged the government’s position that the constitutional amendments allowed the current leadership to remain in office until 2027.
The timing of Ahmed’s dismissal therefore raised serious questions about whether the decision was intended to influence the court’s handling of the politically sensitive case.
The Supreme Court subsequently declared the Chief Justice’s removal unconstitutional and null and void. It argued that the President had no unilateral authority to dismiss the head of the judiciary and accused the presidency of attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.
The confrontation has since developed into a wider institutional dispute, with the executive and judiciary holding opposing positions on the legality of the dismissal and the interpretation of the Constitution.
UN experts demand Ahmed’s reinstatement
In their statement, the UN experts insisted that judges must be allowed to perform their responsibilities without political pressure, intimidation or threats.
They emphasised that judicial independence is not simply a privilege enjoyed by judges. Instead, it is a fundamental protection that allows courts to make decisions based on the law rather than the interests of powerful individuals or political institutions.
The experts explained that judges should only be suspended or removed for reasons involving incapacity or conduct that makes them unfit to perform their duties.
They further stressed that any removal process must include a fair hearing, established standards of judicial conduct and independent review.
The UN officials warned that bypassing these safeguards could establish a dangerous precedent in which political authorities interfere with judicial appointments and dismissals whenever court decisions threaten their interests.
They consequently called on the Somali government to restore Ahmed to office, describing him as the lawfully appointed Chief Justice.
The experts also demanded guarantees for the personal security of Ahmed and other judicial officers, warning that threats against judges could further weaken the independence of the courts.
Concerns over security personnel around the Supreme Court
The crisis has also raised concerns over the presence of security personnel around Somalia’s Supreme Court and allegations of intimidation targeting judicial officers.
The UN experts condemned reports of attempted intimidation and serious threats to judges’ safety. They called for the immediate restoration of personal security protection for affected judicial officers and urged security forces to stand down.
Chief Justice Ahmed had earlier expressed concerns about his safety in Mogadishu, accusing the government of deploying security personnel around the Supreme Court in a manner that could intimidate judges.
He also called for the withdrawal of security forces from the court, arguing that their presence threatened the independence of the institution.
The concerns became more serious after reports that some judges had lost their personal security details and faced restrictions on their movements.
The allegations have added another dimension to the dispute, raising questions about whether judicial officers can continue carrying out their duties freely while facing political and security pressure.
The UN experts maintained that judges must be protected from threats and interference, particularly when handling cases involving the conduct and constitutional authority of senior government officials.
Government defends the leadership change
The Somali government has presented a different explanation for the removal of Ahmed.
The presidency previously cited complaints from judges, court employees and legal professionals concerning the administration of justice. It argued that the leadership change was intended to address concerns about the judicial system and improve transparency, efficiency and public confidence.
President Mohamud also attended the swearing-in ceremony of Ibrahim Idle Suleiman, who was presented as Ahmed’s replacement on November 7.
However, the Supreme Court rejected the dismissal, insisting that the President had failed to follow the constitutional requirements governing the removal of the Chief Justice.
The Somali Judges Forum has also challenged aspects of criticism directed at the government. In a statement reported by the Somali National News Agency, the forum argued that the country’s transitional constitutional arrangements and the incomplete establishment of key judicial institutions should be considered when assessing the dispute.
It maintained that credible allegations of intimidation or unlawful interference involving judicial officers should be investigated, while urging commentators to avoid treating unverified claims as established facts.
The competing positions have demonstrated how deeply divided Somalia’s institutions have become over the constitutional dispute.
Fears of a wider political and constitutional crisis
The confrontation comes at a difficult time for Somalia, which continues to face security, governance and humanitarian challenges.
The country has spent years rebuilding its institutions following decades of conflict and political instability. Its federal government continues to face security threats from Al-Shabaab, an armed group that has carried out attacks in Mogadishu and other parts of the country.
The UN experts warned that irregular and contested constitutional reform processes, combined with the absence of an independent judiciary, could undermine Somalia’s stabilisation and counter-terrorism efforts.
Their concern is that political divisions at the highest levels of government could weaken cooperation among state institutions at a time when the country needs stability and effective leadership.
The dispute also threatens to complicate preparations for the next elections. The government has maintained its position on the extended electoral timetable, while the Supreme Court has directed political leaders to organise elections within 90 days.
The disagreement over the legitimacy of the current leadership could create uncertainty over which institutions have the authority to make important national decisions.
It also raises questions about whether the government will implement the Supreme Court’s ruling and whether political leaders can reach an agreement on the electoral process.
The situation has become even more complicated following the closure of the United Nations’ political mission in Somalia at the end of October. The mission had played an important role in supporting political dialogue and helping rival leaders resolve disputes.
With no agreed replacement mediation mechanism, concerns are growing that the latest confrontation could become harder to contain.
International pressure mounts on Somalia
The UN condemnation adds to growing international concern about the treatment of Somalia’s judiciary and the wider constitutional dispute.
The call for Ahmed’s reinstatement sends a strong message that judicial independence must be protected even when court decisions involve powerful political figures.
The controversy has also attracted attention from regional judicial organisations and legal groups concerned about the implications of the dismissal for the rule of law.
For Somalia, the challenge now goes beyond resolving a disagreement over the leadership of the Supreme Court. The country must address questions about constitutional authority, institutional accountability, judicial security and the legitimacy of its electoral arrangements.
The government faces pressure to demonstrate that its decisions are guided by the Constitution and that judicial officers can carry out their duties without fear of retaliation.
At the same time, political leaders must find a way to resolve their disagreements through dialogue and established legal processes rather than allowing institutional tensions to escalate.
The coming days will therefore be important in determining whether the dispute can be resolved peacefully or develops into a deeper confrontation between the executive and the judiciary.
The UN experts have made their position clear: the lawfully appointed Chief Justice should be restored to office, and the safety of all judges must be guaranteed.
Their warning places Somalia’s leadership under renewed international scrutiny as the country navigates a major constitutional and political test.
