Somali constitution

Somalia has recently adopted its revised constitution, an important milestone for the country’s development. At the same time, there are several aspects that many consider problematic and that deserve open discussion, so that education and dialogue can help improve them.

First, a former president automatically becomes a life member of tthe lower house of parliament, if they have completed their term. This is explicitly stated in Article 64 (4). Is it reasonable for a politician to hold power for life?

Second, freedom of expression, including press and media freedom, is guaranteed by law. However, legal restrictions exist to protect “public morality.” Because the concept of “morality” is so vaguely defined, there is a significant risk that freedom of expression may be curtailed. In practice, many have observed that these restrictions are often applied against journalists, activists, and critical voices.

Third, religious freedom is formally guaranteed, yet the law stipulates that no religion other than Islam may be propagated in the country and that state laws must comply with sharia. This limits religious practice for everyone, including Muslims, as the state effectively dictates how citizens should observe their faith: Politicians tell us what Islam is, and we must comply with their will instead of God,

Fourth, a presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen, according to Article 89. For a country like Somalia, which has experienced civil war and has a large diaspora, many Somalis were born outside the country. Is it fair to exclude them from serving as president, even if they could be the best candidate? We know that Somalia relies heavily on its diaspora to help prevent famine and loss of life, should they really be excluded from contributing at the highest level?

What do you think? Which parts of the constitution do you find most concerning, and how could we improve them through education, dialogue, or reform?

Please share your thoughts!