Why Somalia’s Sovereignty Cannot Be Shared

 

On 12 January 2026, the Federal Government of Somalia issued one of the most consequential legal decisions in its recent history. The Council of Ministers declared that it had annulled all agreements concluded with the Government of the United Arab Emirates. This decision applied not only to federal-level arrangements but also to deals made by government administrative entities, affiliated bodies, and regional administrations. Most notably, it cancelled all cooperative arrangements related to the ports of Berbera, Bosaso, and Kismayo.

The statement was unambiguous. It was an assertion of national sovereignty and constitutional authority. The government justified its action by citing threats to Somalia’s unity, independence, and political integrity. The move was framed as a defence of the nation’s right to speak with one voice on the international stage.

The response was swift. Federal member states, especially Puntland and Jubaland, pushed back. They argued that the agreements they signed with the UAE were legal, necessary, and grounded in powers granted to them by their respective state constitutions. They invoked transitional clauses in the national constitution to support their claim to autonomy in such matters. The result is a standoff that now raises fundamental questions about the meaning of sovereignty, federalism, and constitutional order in Somalia.

However, when the law is read closely and sovereignty is understood clearly, only one position aligns with the text and spirit of the Somali Constitution.

 

A Question of Authority

At the centre of the debate is Article 54 of the Provisional Constitution. It states plainly that foreign affairs, national defence, citizenship, and monetary policy fall within the exclusive powers of the Federal Government. This article is not conditional. The ongoing federal transition does not suspend it. It reflects the universal principle that a state must have a single point of engagement with the outside world.

This is how international law functions. The United Nations does not recognise regions or subnational governments as independent actors. Neither does the African Union nor the Arab League. Sovereignty is indivisible. A country speaks to the world through its federal institutions, not through competing voices from within.

Federal member states are not without power. Article 142 of the Constitution recognises that existing states, such as Puntland, may continue to exercise authority under their own constitutions until harmonisation is complete. However, that clause does not authorise them to sign agreements with foreign powers. It is a transitional measure, not a license for external engagement.

 

A Matter of Process

The Constitution also lays out the legal process for making treaties. Article 69 gives the House of the People the power to ratify international agreements. Article 90 then imposes on the President the duty to sign them after negotiation by the Council of Ministers and ratification by Parliament. Together, these provisions form a chain of authority that protects national interests and ensures democratic oversight.

The federal government cannot bypass these steps. Nor can it allow federal member states to invent their own. If any level of government signs agreements outside this constitutional sequence, those agreements lack legal standing. They may exist on paper. But they do not bind the Somali state.

Some have pointed out that previous federal agreements with the UAE were not correctly submitted to Parliament. That is a fair criticism. All must follow the Constitution. But one violation does not justify another. Federal inconsistency does not create a right for regional governments to act as sovereigns.

 

More Than Law: A Constitutional Philosophy

This is not just a legal dispute. It is a question of political identity. Is Somalia a single state, or several competing states? The answer lies not only in constitutional clauses but also in the philosophical foundation of the Somali state. That foundation rests on unity. It rests on the belief that, while authority may be shared in domestic matters, sovereignty is a single, indivisible power.

Somalia’s future depends on respecting that principle. It depends on building institutions that reflect both the diversity of its regions and the singularity of its voice. No country can survive long with fragmented sovereignty. Development deals and security agreements must be coordinated through federal channels. That is how the Constitution was designed. That is how stable states function.

 

The Path Forward

The annulment of the UAE agreements is legally sound. But it is not the end of the matter. The government must now ensure transparency. All federal contracts, past and present, must be published. Parliament must exercise its ratification powers with seriousness. A legal framework should be developed to regulate regional partnerships with international actors.

In the absence of a functioning Constitutional Court, the country must establish an interim mechanism to resolve disputes between the federal and regional governments. Dialogue must continue. But so must constitutional discipline.

Federalism is not a blank check for regional sovereignty. It is a system of shared power within a single state. Somalia must act as one state. Its sovereignty cannot be outsourced. Its Constitution cannot be bypassed.