Somali leaders agree on election model

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed along with three state leaders and the mayor of Mogadishu have reached an agreement on the country’s election model after days of talks in the central town of Dhusamareb.

The election will be based on constituency caucuses, according to a communique issued after the summit in Dhusamareb, the administrative capital of Galmadug state.

Each caucus will consist of 301 delegates who will vote for a seat in parliament and the election will be presided over by a national independent electoral commission and a party system will be applied.

Puntland autonomous region and Jubaland state leaders did not attend the latest talks on the election as the country remains mired in political turmoil since Somalia’s parliament ousted former Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khayre in July.

“Tonight in Dhusamareb, I have reached an agreement on elections with federal member states and the Banadir region which I hope will lead the country to a fair and timely election. I invite brothers who were absent during the process to join us,” Mohamed said in a short statement on Twitter.

“#Somalia’s election train has already left the station. H.E @M_Farmaajo is leading the line in #Dhusamareb towards the realization of inclusive, participatory and multi-stakeholder elections. Leaders with the nation’s shared interest at heart are already at the table,” Presidential Communications Director Abdinour Mohamed Ahmed said earlier on Twitter.

An opposition alliance known as the Forum for National Parties headed by former Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has accused the current president of failing to lead the country to a one man one vote election.

Source –  AA


  1. If two of the nation’s five federal states were absent from the summit, how legally and constitutionally binding can whatever agreements that were reached be? It makes no sense for the country’s federal president to simply endorse such vital federal matters without full attendance, participation, and consensus of all the concerned states. It is undemocratic and a recipe for further divisions if not chaos. There are also no presidential powers in place to accord him the right to overrule or override any unconsenting state within the federal system.

    Therefore, this throws the legitimacy of the summit and its resolutions into serious doubt and might only serve to widen the wedge between the federal administration and the discontent states. Despite the intense pressure to stick with the agreed timetable for holding the country’s first election in 60 years, a mechanism must surely have existed to anticipate hurdles and ensure any concerns and their setbacks are duly accommodated, even if it means postponing or even prolonging the time frame of the summits.

    In any case, I am none the wiser as to exactly what type of federal system our country has adopted, which makes it even harder to understand the electoral model that has been agreed at the summit.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here