By: Abdullahi Yabarow
Editorial Note: This article examines how failures in governance, justice, and property protection can create conditions that violent extremist organizations seek to exploit. It does not endorse or legitimise Al-Shabaab. Its central argument is that the rule of law is essential to Somalia’s long term security.
When I returned to Mogadishu for the first time in many years, in mid September 2025, I encountered a city cautiously rebuilding its confidence. Markets were busy, cafés and small businesses had reopened, and conversations reflected a guarded sense of optimism. The improvement in security was evident and deserved recognition. Yet a different concern surfaced just as often in discussions with residents, lawyers, and business owners: was the rule of law keeping pace with the country’s recovery?
Those conversations assumed greater significance after my departure. Reports of property disputes and redevelopment projects raised wider concerns about legal certainty. Some owners holding legal deeds reported being required to register their property under new administrative procedures, often accompanied by fees that many households could scarcely afford. Others alleged that homes had been demolished before the courts had determined ownership disputes. Whether those allegations are legally sustainable is a matter for independent judicial determination. Nevertheless, they raise an important constitutional question: what value does legal title have if citizens lose confidence that it will be protected?
For most people, a home represents more than an asset. It embodies security, family history, and the expectation that lawfully acquired rights will be respected. Once that expectation begins to erode, confidence in public institutions comes under strain.
This concern extends beyond Somalia. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of property. Likewise, in Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982), the European Court of Human Rights held that state interference with property must strike a fair balance between the public interest and individual rights. Although Somalia is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, the underlying principle reflects a broader constitutional norm: governments strengthen their legitimacy when citizens know that lawful rights will be protected and independent courts will resolve disputes.
Somalia’s own experience illustrates why that principle matters. During periods when many citizens regarded the formal justice system as slow, inaccessible, or vulnerable to corruption, Al-Shabaab sought to exploit that vacuum by promoting parallel courts as a quicker means of resolving disputes. Those courts were unlawful, and the organisation remains responsible for terrorism and grave human rights abuses. Their appeal rested not on legitimacy but on the perception that they could deliver decisions where state institutions appeared unable or unwilling to do so.
A related concern arises in financial governance. Somalia has strengthened its legal framework against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, making it increasingly difficult to move illicit funds through the formal banking system. At the same time, Mogadishu has experienced a striking expansion in residential and commercial real estate, prompting legitimate public discussion about the origin of some investment capital. Analysts, researchers, and members of the public have questioned whether weaknesses in oversight of the property sector could make real estate more attractive for concealing proceeds derived from corruption, the embezzlement of public funds, organised crime, or terrorist extortion than the regulated banking system. There is no public evidence implicating any particular development, investor, or business. The concern is institutional. Where oversight of the property sector is weaker than oversight of the financial sector, illicit capital becomes more difficult to detect, the shadow economy becomes more resilient, and public confidence in state institutions is further weakened. Strengthening transparency and regulatory oversight of the real estate sector is therefore not only a matter of sound economic governance but also an important safeguard against corruption, organised crime, and the financing of violent extremism.
Military success alone cannot secure lasting peace. Durable security depends upon institutions that uphold the law, protect lawful property, provide effective judicial remedies, and earn public confidence.
If the reported property disputes in Mogadishu are not resolved through transparent legal processes, respect for legally recognised ownership, and independent judicial oversight, the consequences may extend far beyond individual land cases. Once citizens conclude that legal deeds no longer provide meaningful protection and that justice is beyond their reach, confidence in the state begins to erode. That is precisely the environment that violent extremist organisations seek to exploit.
Responsibility for preventing that outcome rests first and foremost with the Federal Government. If lawful property rights are not protected, reported unlawful evictions are not addressed through independent courts, and effective legal remedies cease to command public confidence, grievances are likely to deepen. In those circumstances, extremist organisations gain greater opportunities to portray themselves as an alternative source of justice, however false and unlawful those claims may be. The issue is therefore not only one of constitutional principle but also of national security. A government that protects lawful rights leaves little space for violent extremists to manipulate injustice for their own ends. A government that fails to do so risks allowing failures of governance to become failures of security.
Security may create the opportunity for peace, but only the rule of law can preserve it.
“The King himself ought not to be under any man, but under God and the law.”
— Sir Edward Coke
Adv. Abdullahi Yabarow, LL.M., is a Somali legal scholar based in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on constitutional law, governance reform, institutional accountability, and state building in fragile states. He can be reached at abdullahiyabarow@gmail.com
