MOGADISHU (SD) – The Somali Future Council has strongly condemned a directive issued by Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud that halted the travel of members from both houses of the Federal Parliament who were heading to Puntland to participate in elections taking place there.

In a strongly worded statement, the Council asserted that this decision carries serious legal, constitutional, and political implications, and constitutes a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom and immunity of parliamentary members.

The statement highlighted several critical issues:

• Constitutional Rights Violated: Members of Parliament possess freedom of movement that is guaranteed by the constitution. Interfering with this right sets a dangerous precedent.

• Aviation Integrity at Risk: The use of civil aviation authorities for political purposes undermines public confidence in the aviation system and damages the reputation of Somali airspace.

• Deepening Divisions: Rather than resolving political disagreements, this decision risks exacerbating existing political conflicts within the country.

The Somali Future Council has called upon the President to rescind this decision immediately. They emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, fostering collaboration between state institutions, and preserving national unity.

Concluding their statement, the Council noted that Somalia is currently facing significant security and economic challenges. Such difficult times require leadership grounded in responsibility, political maturity, and unwavering respect for the federal system.

The Council urged all stakeholders to prioritize dialogue and institutional cooperation over unilateral actions that could further destabilize the political landscape.

The statement by the Somali Future Council criticizing President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud reflects deepening tensions within Somalia’s federal political structure, particularly regarding relations between the Federal Government and Puntland.

The reference to civil aviation authorities is also politically significant. If aviation mechanisms were used to enforce the directive, it raises concerns about the politicization of state institutions. In fragile federal contexts like Somalia’s, institutional neutrality is critical. Allegations that regulatory bodies are being used for political control risk undermining public trust and reinforcing narratives of centralization at the expense of federal member states.

At a broader level, this dispute appears to reflect long-standing friction between Mogadishu and Puntland over constitutional interpretation, power distribution, and electoral processes. Puntland has historically asserted a strong degree of autonomy within the federal system. Any attempt by the presidency to restrict political engagement in Puntland’s internal processes is likely to be interpreted as a challenge to federal balance rather than a simple administrative decision.

Overall, the controversy highlights a recurring structural tension in Somalia’s federal model: the unresolved boundaries of authority between the presidency, parliament, and federal member states. How this dispute is handled—whether through dialogue or continued confrontation—could influence the stability of federal-state relations and the credibility of Somalia’s constitutional framework moving forward.