INTRODUCTION
Educational institutions occupy a unique and constitutionally protected position within Somali society. Schools and universities are not merely venues for instruction; they are foundational spaces for intellectual development, social cohesion, and the cultivation of civic values.[1] The recent press releases issued jointly by Somali universities and high-school administrations articulate a firm institutional refusal to allow their premises to be used for disputed electoral processes. This position reflects not political alignment, but a principled stance grounded in security concerns, educational integrity, constitutional guarantees, and international norms on the protection of education.[2]
According to the press statement released by the Association of Somali Universities on 15 December 2025, higher-education institutions firmly declined to serve as venues for electoral processes that were marked by the absence of consensus and clear legal grounding. The statement explains that such use of university premises would pose serious threats to security, disrupt academic activities, and compromise institutional neutrality. It further emphasizes that, in Somalia’s fragile security environment, subjecting campuses to disputed political exercises would place students, faculty members, and university administrators at real and foreseeable risk of intimidation, coercion, and violence, rather than merely speculative harm.[3]
In the implementation of institutional autonomy, States bear dual obligations: a negative obligation to refrain from unwarranted interference in higher education, and a positive obligation to protect higher education institutions, their leadership, academic and professional staff, and students from interference or attacks by third parties. This entails not only abstaining from direct or indirect involvement in actions that undermine academic autonomy, but also adopting effective measures to prevent, deter, and sanction conduct that threatens the integrity and safety of educational spaces.
Viewed against this normative framework, recent practices attributed to the Ministry of Education of Somalia raise serious legal and rights-based concerns. Acting on behalf of a disputed National Election Commission, the Ministry reportedly issued directives to secondary schools and universities that extend beyond its lawful educational mandate. These directives allegedly required institutions to: (i) make university premises and surrounding facilities available for use as polling venues on election day; (ii) mobilize a specified number of students reportedly up to sixty per institution to assist with crowd control and other election-related logistical functions; and (iii) actively encourage students to participate in voting activities.
Such measures, if established, constitute direct state interference in the internal affairs of educational institutions and risk transforming schools and universities into instruments of contested political processes. Rather than protecting higher education from external political pressures, these actions may undermine institutional autonomy, compromise the neutrality of educational spaces, and expose students and staff to security risks. In this respect, the State appears not only to have failed in its positive obligation to shield higher education from politicization, but also to have breached its negative obligation by facilitating and directing interference through governmental authority.
The above principles are grounded in international human rights law, notably Article 13 of the ICESCR, which recognizes institutional autonomy and academic freedom as inherent to the right to education and imposes both negative obligations on States to refrain from unjustified interference and positive obligations to protect the right. This dual obligation is affirmed by the CESCR in General Comment No. 13 (1999), which identifies academic freedom and institutional autonomy as essential elements of the right to education and requires States to respect and protect educational institutions from third-party interference. The UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) further reinforces the duty of States to ensure higher education remains free from political interference and external coercion.
The universities released a statement detailing seven key concerns, as outlined below; –
The statement reflects the collective position of the universities in response to the proposed use of educational institutions for contested electoral activities.
- Security and Protection of Life and Property
Foremost among the concerns raised is the issue of security. The press release highlights the heightened likelihood that political gatherings associated with disputed elections may attract armed actors, provoke confrontations, or escalate into violence, thereby endangering lives and property within educational environments. Under Somali constitutional principles, as well as general doctrines of state responsibility, public authorities bear a positive obligation to protect individuals from foreseeable harm. Allowing electoral activities under contested conditions within schools and universities would constitute a failure to discharge this duty of care, particularly where safer alternative venues are available.
- Academic Freedom and Continuity of Education
The universities further emphasized that electoral activities would inevitably disrupt teaching schedules, examinations, and academic planning. As noted in the statement, suspensions of classes, examinations, and academic calendars undermine students’ right to education and compromise institutional missions. Education systems rely on stability and predictability; politicized interruptions erode learning outcomes and disproportionately harm students from vulnerable backgrounds who have limited alternatives.
In legal terms, the right to education encompasses not only access, but also continuity and quality. Disruptions caused by non-educational political activities within learning spaces directly conflict with this right and may amount to indirect violations of constitutionally protected educational guarantees.
- Neutrality of Educational Spaces
A central theme running through the press release is the imperative of neutrality. Schools and universities are intended to function as non-partisan spaces, insulated from political competition and coercion. The use of educational premises for disputed electoral processes risks transforming neutral institutions into contested political arenas, thereby eroding public trust in both the education system and the electoral process itself.
From a governance perspective, this concern aligns with widely recognized principles that protect educational institutions from militarization and politicization, particularly in conflict-affected societies. Once neutrality is compromised, institutions may face long-term reputational damage and become recurrent targets of political pressure.
- Protection of Students’ Rights and Well-Being
The press release details how political activities on campuses can generate fear, pressure, and intimidation among students, teachers, and administrators. Such conditions infringe upon students’ rights to dignity, safety, and an environment conducive to learning. Moreover, exposure to political coercion within school’s risks normalizing fear-based participation rather than fostering informed civic engagement.
These concerns are particularly acute at the secondary-school level, where students are minors entitled to heightened protection under both domestic law and international child-rights standards.
- Social Cohesion and Long-Term Consequences
Beyond immediate risks, the universities warned of broader societal implications. The introduction of contested political processes into educational settings may deepen social divisions, fuel hostility, and entrench polarization among young people. Education is traditionally a unifying force; politicizing it threatens its role in reconciliation and nation-building.
The statement further cautions that such practices may have lasting negative effects on the education sector, weakening institutional resilience and discouraging enrollment and investment over time.
- Legal and Constitutional Foundations
Both press releases situate their objections within a constitutional framework, referencing protections for human dignity, education, security, and the rule of law. They emphasize that political activities conducted in violation of legal procedures and without consensus undermine constitutional order and democratic legitimacy. In this sense, the refusal by universities and schools constitutes an exercise of institutional autonomy and a lawful defense of constitutional values rather than defiance of state authority.
Conclusion
The refusal by Somali universities and schools to host disputed elections represents a reasoned, legally grounded, and rights-based position. It reflects an understanding that education spaces must remain secure, neutral, and dedicated exclusively to learning. Far from obstructing democratic processes, this stance seeks to protect both education and democracy by insisting that political competition occur within appropriate, lawful, and consensual frameworks.
Ultimately, the press release serves as an important reminder that safeguarding education is inseparable from safeguarding the future of the nation. Decisions that compromise the integrity of schools and universities risk inflicting harm far beyond the immediate political moment, with consequences that may endure for generations.
[1] Rob Rogers, ‘Protecting Public Education: The Danger of Politicizing Local School Boards’ (2024), available at https://rob-subterra-insights.medium.com/protecting-public-education-0277666cd597.
[2] Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA), ‘Institutional Autonomy and the Protection of Higher Education from Attack’ (2013), available at https://www.right-to-education.org/resource/institutional-autonomy-and-protection-higher-education-attack.
[3] See, the university press release is attached below
No comment