Loading article content...
Loading article content...
MOGADISHU, 6 November 2026 – Somalia’s Office of the Attorney General on Friday rejected a ruling by five judges of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Division that the terms of the president, parliament and federal government had expired, saying the decision had no legal effect.
The ruling, issued on Thursday, came in a case brought against the federal government by former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who challenged amendments to the 2012 provisional constitution and the extension of the terms of elected institutions.
The judges dismissed the part of the case challenging the constitutionality of the amendment process, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing to bring it. But they upheld the part concerning the extension of terms, ruling that the mandates of federal institutions were four years.
The ruling said the terms of both houses of parliament and the government ended on April 14, 2026, and the president’s term on May 15, 2026. It said actions taken by those institutions since then had no legal basis and that the government was a caretaker administration limited to day-to-day business.
The judges directed all parties involved in the elections to agree within 30 days on a consensual electoral model, to be held within 90 days.
Related articles
The ruling was signed by Salah Sheikh Ibrahim Dhiblawe, who chaired the panel, Abubakar Ahmed Ali, Abdulkadir Idiris Isse, Abdulaziz Mohamed Yusuf and Abdulgafar Hussein Isaq.
The Attorney General’s office, which represented the government in the case, said in a statement that the decision “is not in line with the law,” does not represent Somalia’s judiciary, “and therefore has no legal effect.”
The office accused the judges of failing to respond to a legal objection it had filed, of violating the court’s structure because the Chief Justice did not preside over the panel, and of “creating a case different from the one that was filed.” It said it would take appropriate legal action.
The ruling itself, however, references the Attorney General’s objection as having been considered, and the plaintiff’s petition explicitly cited the extension of the terms of office.
The dispute follows the removal of Chief Justice Bashe Yusuf Ahmed and the appointment of his successor.