Between Decree and Motion: Executive and Legislative Authority over Civil-Service Recruitment in Somalia

On 17 September 2026, the Prime Minister directed that public-service recruitment be based on merit (qualifications, experience, competence), citing Article 161(1) of the Constitution and Article 7 of the Civil Service Law. The first phase, from 20 September, covered departmental directors in federal ministries, with Directors-General to follow. On 23 September, the House of the People voted 136 to 2, with 2 abstentions, to nullify the directive.

1. Did the Prime Minister have authority? Probably not on his own. No written law gives him a general, independent power over recruitment. Article 7 of Law No. 11 of 2006 assigns recruitment to the National Civil Service Commission (NCSC), which must act independently. Compliance was doubtful in other ways too:

• Article 161(4) requires open public advertisement, but ministries limited vacancies to existing staff.
• The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, not a decree, was the natural route.
• The NCSC has 14 members, while Article 158(3) of the 2026 Constitution requires 15.

2. Could Parliament nullify the directive? Also doubtful. Parliament legislates and oversees the executive, for example through committee hearings. The Constitution gives it no general power to suspend or nullify executive directives by motion. Under the maxim error non facit jus, one institution’s legal error does not give another a power the law has not granted.

3. The judicial route. Articles 5(3)(b) and 10 of the Judicature Act 1962 provide a basis for challenging final administrative decisions before the Supreme Court, whose judgments are binding on the administration. Similarly, Article 10 of the Somali Civil Procedure Code recognizes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over administrative decisions, reinforcing the Court’s role as the judicial forum for reviewing the legality of administrative action. Although, access is limited, though: the 2023 court-fee regulations reportedly put the cost at about US$300-2,000, before legal fees.

The dispute exposes weak separation of powers, with the Executive and Legislature dominant and the judiciary weak and costly to reach. Alleged executive overreach should be corrected through the prescribed judicial mechanisms, not by parliamentary overreach.