In a dramatic escalation of Somalia’s deepening federal tensions, the Presidency of Jubaland has formally withdrawn from the ongoing process to amend the country’s provisional constitution, declaring the effort illegitimate and warning that it will not recognize any outcome reached without its participation.
In a sharply worded press statement issued on Wednesday, the Madobe led Jubaland government said it would not take part in what it described as an incomplete and procedurally flawed constitutional review process. The regional administration argued that the pathways being used to amend the agreed-upon federal charter violate the original consensus and mechanisms that brought the constitution into force.
More consequentially, lawmakers from both houses of Somalia’s Federal Parliament who represent Jubaland are now boycotting the constitutional deliberations altogether. The move effectively strips the process of formal representation from one of Somalia’s key federal member states – raising immediate questions about legitimacy, enforceability, and national cohesion.
The message from Kismayo was unmistakable: any unilateral amendment passed without broad national consultation “will not apply to or be recognized by” the people and territories of Jubaland.
At the heart of the dispute lies Somalia’s still-unfinished Provisional Constitution; a fragile federal compact negotiated after decades of civil conflict.
Jubaland officials contend that pushing through revisions absent full consensus risks unraveling that delicate settlement. “Any constitution adopted through a process that is not collectively completed and not grounded in national agreement cannot reflect the broader interests of the Somali people,” the statement warned.
The timing is politically combustible. With the legal mandates of federal institutions approaching expiration and no comprehensive agreement yet in place on the national electoral framework, Jubaland signaled it is weighing “all available options” should terms lapse without a negotiated settlement. The language stops short of explicit threats but underscores the possibility of parallel political maneuvers if Mogadishu proceeds unilaterally.
The confrontation exposes a widening fault line between Somalia’s federal center and its member states, a recurring struggle over power-sharing, electoral models, and the architecture of federalism itself. For Jubaland, the issue is not merely procedural. It is existential: who gets to define the rules of Somalia’s political order, and by what authority?
As constitutional revisions advance in Mogadishu without Jubaland’s participation, Somalia now faces a familiar and dangerous question, whether its federal experiment can survive another rupture in trust between the center and the periphery