When Parliament Speaks and the Presidency Stays Silent

 

Somalia’s 2018 ban on DP World remains unenforced, as two administrations have bypassed constitutional procedures.

In 2018, Somalia’s Federal Parliament passed a resolution to ban DP World from operating within Somali territory. Lawmakers argued that the company’s agreements with regional administrations violated Somalia’s Constitution, which gives the Federal Government exclusive authority over foreign affairs.

The resolution passed with a clear majority in the House of the People, but it was never enacted. Under Article 90 of the Provisional Constitution, a resolution passed by Parliament must be signed by the President to become legally binding. Then, President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo did not sign it. As a result, the resolution was left inactive.

When President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud returned to office in 2022, the same resolution remained pending. Despite holding the constitutional authority to approve or reject it, he took no action. The ban was neither enforced nor challenged. During this period, DP World continued its operations in Somali ports, including Berbera, Bosaso, and Kismayo.

Although the 2018 resolution remained unsigned, the administration of President Hassan Sheikh entered into new agreements with the United Arab Emirates. These agreements were signed without being submitted to Parliament for ratification, as required by Articles 69 and 90 of the Constitution. Unlike during Farmaajo’s term, when no such federal agreements were signed, this marked a direct procedural breach under the current administration.

This dual-track approach, which ignores a previously adopted resolution while signing new, unratified agreements, has raised legal and constitutional concerns. The government’s justification for cancelling regional contracts on 12 January 2026 was grounded in Article 54, which provides that foreign affairs fall solely within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Yet the same standard was not applied to agreements made by the executive branch.

Legal experts agree that the issue is not a lack of legal clarity. The Constitution is explicit about how international agreements must be handled. It is the consistent failure to follow these procedures that has undermined institutional legitimacy.

“This is not a grey area,” said one constitutional law professor based in Mogadishu. “Parliament acted. The executive branch, under two administrations, failed to respond. That is a breakdown in constitutional order.”

The government’s January 2026 directive to annul all agreements between FGS, federal member states and the UAE was framed as a defence of national sovereignty. However, the delay in acting, combined with the executive’s procedural violations, has prompted criticism of selective enforcement.

Somalia’s constitutional system is built on shared powers and checks and balances. When one branch of government performs its role while another refuses to act, it creates an imbalance that weakens the entire system. The failure to act on Parliament’s resolution, and the decision to sign new agreements without following constitutional procedures, have contributed to that erosion.

As a Somali legal expert, I see this not only as a legal failure but also as a governance issue. The Constitution must be followed in both letter and spirit. When a president, in this case President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, fails to enforce parliamentary decisions and does not subject his own agreements to the required legal review, it raises a deeper question: how can the public trust a leadership that does not follow the rules it is sworn to uphold?

The Constitution is not optional. Respect for its procedures is the foundation of state legitimacy. When that respect is absent, so is the authority it is meant to protect.