Response of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia to the Statement of United Nations Human Rights Experts of 12 November 2026

Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

1. The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs acknowledges the statement issued on 12 November 2026 by United Nations human rights experts concerning the judiciary in Somalia.

2. The Government values its engagement with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and the constructive role of independent experts, and it takes the concerns raised seriously. It reaffirms its commitment to the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and constitutional supremacy, which it regards as fundamental pillars of a constitutional State.

3. Regrettably, the experts did not seek clarification from the State before issuing their statement, as the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council requires. Articles 6(a)–(b) and 13(a) of the Code call for an impartial assessment of the facts based on reliable information, which presupposes that the State concerned is first heard.

4. The Permanent Mission of Somalia in Geneva received an email from the experts requesting an emergency meeting. The Mission asked for an official letter setting out the key issues for discussion, so that it could inform the capital. No letter or list of issues was received. Instead, the experts shared their press release by email after it had already been published.

5. Somalia is undergoing a transition from the previous constitutional order to the system established under the 2026 Constitution, and not all of the institutions it contemplates have yet been established, including the High Council of the Judiciary. The Government does not regard the matters raised as a confrontation between the executive and the judiciary, or as a dispute between individuals. It regards them as a constitutional and institutional question in which judicial independence, constitutional supremacy, proper jurisdiction, procedural fairness and the continuity of the State must be protected together.

6. The former Chief Justice was removed from office on 4 November 2026 through the transitional process by which he was first nominated. That process applied the same procedure as at his original appointment, when the High Council of the Judiciary had likewise not been fully constituted. The decision was taken within the transitional framework and is unconnected to the deliberations of the Supreme Court in the constitutional proceedings.

7. Subsequently, the former Chief Justice announced, in the name of the Supreme Court, pronouncements presented as a ruling. By then his removal had taken effect, and he no longer held the mandate of Chief Justice. A ruling of the Court can be issued only by a lawfully constituted bench presided over by a Chief Justice who holds that mandate. The Government therefore does not recognise the pronouncements as a ruling of the Court. They have no legal basis and were made after his removal from office.

8. The State was represented in the constitutional proceedings before the Supreme Court (case no. MS/DST/1/2026) by the Office of the State Attorney General (the Office). Before the merits were addressed, the Office raised objections concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the claimant’s standing to bring the claim.

9. In its statement of 6 November 2026, the Office set out its position on the pronouncements. It noted that: (a) the preliminary objections were not answered before the merits were addressed; (b) the parties were not heard in adversarial proceedings at a public hearing, as the Somali Civil Procedure Code (Articles 69 and 88), read with Article 24 of Law No. 23 of 27 June 2016, requires; (c) the composition of the bench did not comply with Article 24(5) of that Law, under which the case must be presided over by the Chief Justice; and (d) the Court created a new claim that had not been brought before it, contrary to Article 77 of the Code.

10. These objections do not reject judicial review. They reflect the principle that a court must establish its jurisdiction, its lawful composition and the admissibility of a claim before determining the substance of a dispute, and that these safeguards apply equally to all parties.

11. Without prejudice to that position, the Office also noted that the pronouncements dismissed the challenge to the constitutional amendments on the ground that the claimant lacked standing yet went on to determine the consequences of those amendments for the terms of office and powers of existing constitutional institutions. This raises a legal question about the relationship between standing, the scope of the proceedings and the relief granted. The Government regards it as a question of law, not a political objection to the outcome.

12. For these reasons, the Office concluded that the pronouncements do not comply with the law, and the Government considers them null and void and without legal effect. The Office has stated that it will take the appropriate legal steps. The Government notes that the pronouncements did not invalidate the 2026 Constitution. It will pursue its position through lawful and institutional means, without pressure on any judge or interference with the performance of judicial functions.

13. The Government remains open to dialogue with the United Nations experts and is ready to provide further information, including the statement of the Office of 6 November 2026. It also encourages dialogue among all political and institutional actors, in accordance with the Constitution and in the interest of stability, the rule of law and the continued strengthening of Somalia’s institutions.

Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

Federal Republic of Somalia