Mogadishu, SOMALIA – The high-stakes meeting by the National Consultative Council (NCC) in Mogadishu is set to continue without the participation of two key federal member states, Puntland and Jubaland. The decision by the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) and its aligned states to press ahead with the gathering, despite the absence of these critical stakeholders, has sparked outrage and concern among many Somalis, who fear that the NCC’s deliberations and decisions will lack credibility and fail to reflect the true will and aspirations of the Somali people.
The controversy surrounding the NCC meeting has been further fueled by statements from Prime Minister Hamza Barre, who has insisted that the gathering must proceed in the interest of national unity and cohesion. In a televised address last night, Barre declared that “we must not do things that divide the country,” a sentiment that has been met with skepticism and disbelief by many observers, who see the FGS’s actions as a blatant attempt to sideline its critics and consolidate its own power.
The NCC’s Legitimacy Crisis
As a forum that brings together the country’s top political leaders to deliberate on issues of national importance, including constitutional amendments and electoral reforms, the NCC is meant to be a platform for inclusive dialogue and consensus-building, one that reflects the diversity and complexity of the Somali political landscape.
However, the decision to proceed with the meeting without the participation of Puntland and Jubaland, two of Somalia’s most influential and strategically important federal member states, has severely undermined the NCC’s claim to legitimacy and raised doubts about its ability to speak for the Somali people as a whole. By excluding these critical voices from the conversation, the FGS and its allies have effectively reduced the NCC to a mere echo chamber, one in which their own narrow interests and agendas can be advanced without meaningful opposition or scrutiny.
This blatant disregard for the principles of inclusion and representation has not gone unnoticed by the Somali public, many of whom have expressed deep frustration and anger at the FGS’s heavy-handed tactics. For these citizens, the NCC’s legitimacy crisis is a stark reminder of the broken promises and dashed hopes that have characterized Somalia’s long and difficult journey towards a more stable, inclusive, and democratic future.
The fact that the NCC is now poised to make critical decisions about the country’s electoral process, without the input or consent of two of its most important stakeholders, has only added to the sense of outrage and betrayal felt by many Somalis. They see this as a cynical attempt by the FGS to use the NCC platform to push through its own agenda, one that is focused on extending its own power and influence at the expense of the federal member states and the broader Somali public.
Prime Minister Barre’s Rhetorical Sleight of Hand
Against this backdrop of growing public anger and frustration, Prime Minister Hamza Barre’s statements about the need to avoid divisive actions and maintain national unity have struck many Somalis as deeply disingenuous and even insulting. For these critics, Barre’s words are a textbook example of political doublespeak, a rhetorical sleight of hand designed to mask the FGS’s own role in exacerbating the very divisions he claims to oppose.
After all, it is the FGS itself that has taken the divisive step of proceeding with the NCC meeting without the participation of Puntland and Jubaland, a move that has effectively split the country along regional and ideological lines. By refusing to engage with these key stakeholders and dismissing their concerns and grievances, the FGS has sent a clear message that it is more interested in consolidating its own power than in building a truly inclusive and representative political system.
Moreover, Barre’s insistence that the NCC must continue in the interest of national unity rings hollow in light of the FGS’s own actions in recent months, which have been marked by a consistent pattern of centralization, intimidation, and political maneuvering. From its attempts to extend President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s mandate through electoral delays to its alleged campaign of online harassment against the leadership of Jubaland, the FGS has shown little regard for the principles of unity and cohesion that Barre now claims to champion.
In this context, the prime minister’s words are seen by many as a cynical attempt to deflect blame and evade responsibility for the current crisis, rather than a genuine call for dialogue and compromise. By framing the issue in terms of national unity and the need to avoid division, Barre is seeking to paint the FGS’s critics as obstructionists and spoilers, rather than legitimate stakeholders with valid concerns and grievances.
