On 5 November 2026, the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Somalia issued a two-page statement declaring null and void the presidential announcement removing Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed from office. The statement followed the Presidency’s announcement of 4 November 2026, which removed Baashe and reinstated his predecessor, Ibrahim Idle Suleiman. The Court argued that the removal violated the constitutional principles of judicial independence, separation of powers and the rule of law.
The central constitutional question arising from this dispute is whether the President possesses an independent power to remove the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Court’s position is that the removal of the head of the judiciary must follow the constitutional procedure rather than depend on a unilateral presidential decision. This position is consistent with the principle of judicial independence under Article 106(1) of the 2012 Provisional Constitution, which establishes that the judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches when exercising its judicial functions and that judges are subject only to the law.
The Court further relied on Articles 135 and 138 of the revised 2026 constitutional framework, which regulate the appointment and removal of the Chief Justice. Under the appointment procedure described by the Court, the Judicial Service Council initiates the nomination, Parliament provides the required approval, and the President formally issues the appointment decree.
Similarly, removal must originate through the constitutionally designated judicial body and receive the prescribed parliamentary approval. Consequently, the President cannot independently exercise a power that the Constitution assigns to other institutions. This arrangement reflects the constitutional principle that the authority to appoint and remove senior judicial officers must be exercised through institutional safeguards.
The timing of the dismissal also raises significant concerns. At the time of the announcement, a constitutional challenge concerning amendments to the Constitution and the mandates of federal institutions was already pending before the Supreme Court. Removing the Chief Justice while the Court was dealing with a matter of considerable constitutional and political importance creates a legitimate concern about possible executive interference with judicial proceedings. Although the timing alone does not establish the President’s motive, it reinforces the importance of protecting judicial officers against arbitrary removal and political pressure.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s declaration also raises an institutional question concerning impartiality. Since the dispute directly concerns the leadership of the institution issuing the declaration, questions may arise about whether the Court is deciding a matter in which it has an institutional interest. This does not automatically invalidate its constitutional reasoning, particularly where the Constitution assigns it jurisdiction over constitutional disputes. However, it highlights the importance of an independent and properly established Constitutional Court capable of resolving sensitive constitutional disputes with institutional neutrality.
Ultimately, this controversy extends beyond the tenure of one Chief Justice. It concerns the constitutional boundaries between the executive, legislature and judiciary, and whether public institutions are willing to respect the procedures established by the Constitution. A constitutional system cannot function effectively if the powers of one institution are exercised at the expense of another. The protection of judicial independence is therefore not a privilege belonging to judges; it is a fundamental guarantee for citizens seeking impartial justice and the protection of their constitutional rights.
The events surrounding Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed’s removal represent an important test of Somalia’s constitutional order. The decisive issue is not simply who occupies the office of Chief Justice, but whether that office is governed by constitutional procedures rather than unilateral political authority.
No comment