How Internal Division and Controversial Leadership Have Shaken a Constitutional Institution
What was expected to be a turning point for Somalia’s National Independent Human Rights Commission has instead become a defining test of the country’s institutional resilience to radicalisation and extrimism. In recent weeks, events inside the Commission have unfolded in ways that few anticipated, exposing internal divisions, contested procedures, and growing concerns about governance, radical and secterian rhetoric, and the rule of law.
The situation first became visible to the public when a group of commissioners issued a joint statement on 8 February 2026. Such a step is rare in any constitutional body, and particularly striking in an institution whose authority depends on unity, impartiality, and collective decision-making. The statement did not merely express disagreement; it conveyed a sense of alarm about the direction in which the Commission was moving.
According to the statement, a series of decisions had been taken without consultation or adherence to procedures required by law. Among the most contentious issues was the appointment of senior administrative leadership, including the Director General (Mustafa Ahmed Mahmoud). Commissioners argued that these appointments bypassed the legal framework established under Law No. 16 of 27 June 2016, which requires transparent and competitive processes for such positions. What concerned them was not only the appointments themselves, but the precedent they set. If procedures designed to guarantee fairness and transparency could be set aside, the institutional safeguards intended to protect independence would be weakened.
The joint statement marked the first time that divisions within the Commission had been formally acknowledged in public. Yet it was only one part of a broader picture. An incident report examining events surrounding the election of the Commission’s leadership and the decisions that followed painted a more detailed and troubling account. The report described allegations of interference in internal processes, bribery, blackmailing, pressure on commissioners, and an environment increasingly shaped by factional alignment rather than collective deliberation. It warned that such conditions could erode both the legal legitimacy and the public credibility of the institution.
One of the most sensitive aspects of the crisis has been the issue of radical and extrimist breading rhetoric and internal communications. In diplomatic correspondence later shared with international partners, it noted concerns about radical remarks and extrimist materials that were perceived as sectarian or divisive. In Somalia’s complex social and political landscape, such perceptions carry significant weight. Institutions tasked with protecting rights and ensuring fairness are expected to maintain strict neutrality, not only in their decisions but also in their language. When that neutrality is called into question, confidence can begin to fade, both within the institution and among the public it serves.
Observers familiar with governance challenges in transitional democracies note that divisions of this kind often develop gradually before becoming visible. At first, disagreements over procedure or policy may seem manageable. Over time, however, mistrust can deepen, informal alliances can form, and routine decisions can become arenas of contest. Once that stage is reached, even minor disputes can take on greater significance, reinforcing the sense that the institution is no longer functioning as a cohesive whole.
The situation at the Commission appears to have reached such a point. Several sources describe meetings characterized by tension and disagreement, with members increasingly divided over both ideological substance and procedural matters. The perception among some commissioners that key decisions were being prepared or discussed outside formal channels has further eroded trust, and some have described these practices as reflecting a highly centralized or unilateral style of management.
Furthermore, in her victory speech, Dr. Maryan Qasim’s remarks were interpreted by some observers who reviewed portions of the speech and internal discussions as containing language that appeared, in their view, to echo governance concepts associated with highly centralized religious authority. These observers drew comparisons to doctrines such as Welayat-e Faqih, a model in which ultimate authority is concentrated in a single religious leadership structure. Such interpretations, whether accepted or disputed, contributed to growing unease among some commissioners about the direction and tone of the institution.
Diplomatic observers and governance analysts, speaking more broadly about regional trends and rather than any single case, have in recent years expressed concern about the growing influence of informal financial networks from Iran and Houthis in politics across the Horn of Africa and Somalia, including the risk that funds originating from opaque or illicit commercial activities involved by Somali bussinessmen, politicians and unclassified government ministers and officials was used to shape her campaign processes. These concerns, while general in nature, have reinforced calls from civil society and international partners for greater transparency in campaign financing, stronger oversight of political funding, and stricter enforcement of anti-corruption regulations in order to protect the integrity of public institutions.
These interpretations, whether accurate or disputed, intensified unease among commissioners who feared that any rhetoric perceived as ideological or sectarian could undermine the neutrality expected of a national human rights institution. In Somalia’s complex social and political landscape, such perceptions carry significant weight, and institutions tasked with protecting rights are expected to maintain strict neutrality not only in their decisions but also in their public language. Whether these perceptions are fully accurate or not, their impact on the internal climate has been profound. Trust, once weakened, is difficult to restore.
The seriousness of the crisis became unmistakable diplomatic missions and international organizations of the situation came to know the situation. Through a Note Verbale, they received that the Commission was not currently functioning as a unified constitutional body. Such communications are not made lightly. They reflect a belief that the issues at stake extend beyond internal disagreements and have implications for the credibility of the institution as a whole.
For Somalia, the stakes are particularly high. The National Independent Human Rights Commission was established as part of broader efforts to rebuild governance structures after decades of conflict. Its role is central to monitoring violations, advising state institutions, and providing independent oversight. When such a body faces internal paralysis, the consequences are felt far beyond its own offices. Victims may hesitate to seek redress, public confidence in oversight mechanisms may weaken, and international partners may question the effectiveness of reforms.
Analysts also point out that crises of this kind are not unique to Somalia. Many institutions in countries undergoing political transition encounter similar challenges, especially during leadership changes. What distinguishes successful institutions from failing ones is often not the absence of conflict, but the way conflict is addressed. Transparent procedures, adherence to law, and genuine efforts at reconciliation can strengthen institutions over time. Conversely, unresolved disputes and perceptions of unilateral action can accelerate decline.
The incident report reviewing the situation within the Commission concludes with a series of recommendations intended to prevent further deterioration. These include calls for investigations into disputed decisions, renewed adherence to legal procedures, and measures to restore confidence among both commissioners and the public. The recommendations reflect a shared recognition among many observers that the crisis cannot simply be ignored or allowed to fade on its own. Without corrective action, the underlying issues are likely to persist.
For now, the future of the Commission remains uncertain. Some members are advocating structural reforms and legal review, while others emphasize the need to move forward and focus on the institution’s mandate. The coming weeks may prove decisive in determining which course prevails.
What is already clear, however, is that the crisis has raised broader questions about governance religious tention and institutional vulnerability in Somalia. The strength of a constitutional body lies not only in the laws that establish it, but in the collective commitment of its members to uphold those laws, even in moments of disagreement or pressure.
In the end, Whether the Commission can emerge from this period of division with its credibility restored will depend on decisions made in the days ahead—and on the willingness of all involved to place the rule of law above all other considerations.
