Somalia’s Supreme Court has overturned President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s decision to remove Chief Justice Baashe Yusuf Ahmed, declaring his dismissal null and void and accusing the president of violating the Constitution in a dispute that has exposed growing tensions between the executive and judiciary.
In a ruling issued on Thursday, November 5, the court said Mohamud had no constitutional authority to dismiss the head of the judiciary unilaterally, arguing that the decision undermined judicial independence, the separation of powers and the rule of law.
“The statement regarding the removal of the Chief Justice published on the Presidency’s Facebook page lacks any legal basis,” the Supreme Court said.
The ruling came a day after the presidency announced that Mohamud had removed Baashe and reinstated former Chief Justice Ibrahim Idle Suleiman, who previously held the position before being replaced in May 2018.
However, the Supreme Court disputed the legality of the leadership change, insisting that the president could not bypass the constitutional procedures governing the appointment and removal of the country’s top judicial official.
Supreme Court links Baashe’s removal to Sharif’s case
In one of the strongest parts of its statement, the court suggested that the decision to remove Baashe was connected to a constitutional petition already before it, raising questions about possible interference with an ongoing judicial process.
“The purpose of the dismissal was to interfere with a constitutional case already before the court concerning amendments to Somalia’s Constitution and questions involving the mandates of the president, government and federal parliament,” the court said.
The case was filed by former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed on October 11, with the Supreme Court receiving the petition the following day.
Sharif is challenging the procedures used to amend the Constitution and decisions arising from the changes, including provisions affecting the mandates of the presidency, federal government and parliament.
The dispute carries significant political implications because the amendments underpin the federal government’s electoral framework and its preparations for the planned 2027 elections.
Sharif has argued that the constitutional changes were adopted without following the procedures required by law and has warned that proceeding with elections without wider political agreement could deepen divisions.
The Supreme Court relied on provisions of the 2012 Provisional Constitution and the revised 2026 Constitution to explain why it considered Baashe’s removal unconstitutional.
According to the court, Article 138 of the revised Constitution requires the Judicial Service Commission to propose the removal of the chief justice before the decision can be approved by a simple majority of both houses of parliament sitting jointly.
The court also cited Article 135, which provides for the appointment of a chief justice through a process involving the Judicial Service Commission, parliamentary approval and formal confirmation by the president.
The presidency’s announcement on Wednesday did not indicate whether the Judicial Service Commission had recommended Baashe’s removal or whether parliament had approved the dismissal and Suleiman’s reinstatement.
The court subsequently called on Mohamud to respect constitutional procedures, judicial independence and the rule of law.
Presidency cited complaints against Baashe
Mohamud’s administration had justified the leadership change by citing complaints from members of the judiciary and legal professionals about the administration of justice.
In its Wednesday announcement, the presidency said the president had acted following concerns raised by judges, judicial staff and other legal professionals.
It added that Mohamud intended to pursue broader reforms aimed at ensuring citizens had access to a transparent, fair and reliable justice system.
However, the announcement did not identify specific accusations against Baashe, explain whether disciplinary proceedings had been conducted or indicate whether the Judicial Service Commission and parliament had participated in the removal process.
The Supreme Court also rejected the presidency’s justification, disputing allegations attributed to judges and legal professionals while defending Baashe’s record on judicial integrity, anti-corruption efforts and institutional reforms.
The presidency had not publicly responded to Thursday’s ruling at the time of reporting.
The confrontation comes less than three months after the Supreme Court, under Baashe’s leadership, overturned the results of parliamentary and local council elections held in Galmudug on July 30.
The court cited constitutional and electoral violations in its decision, forcing the National Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission to organise fresh elections on September 30.
The Supreme Court subsequently certified the new results after determining that no valid legal challenges had been filed within the prescribed period.
The latest dispute therefore places the judiciary at the centre of another politically significant matter, with the pending constitutional petition threatening to shape the legal framework for the country’s next elections.
Some Somali media outlets had previously reported that Baashe’s removal could be connected to the constitutional case, citing unnamed sources. Thursday’s statement marked the first direct accusation by the Supreme Court that the president’s decision was intended to interfere with proceedings already before it.
Who is Ibrahim Idle Suleiman?
Suleiman, whom Mohamud reinstated as chief justice on Wednesday, previously occupied the position before being replaced by Baashe in May 2018 during the administration of former President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo.
He later served as a legal adviser to Mohamud before his latest return to the judiciary’s top office was announced by the presidency.
However, the Supreme Court’s declaration that Baashe’s dismissal was invalid has thrown the legality of the leadership change into question, setting the stage for a potentially prolonged institutional dispute.