MOGADISHU (SD) – Opposition MPs, under the banner of the “Independent Parliamentarians,” have issued a press release strongly warning against steps they describe as non-consensual constitutional amendments that also bypass the official procedural pathways established by the Constitution.

These MPs have cautioned against the plans to amend the articles of the Constitution while Parliament is convened in the capital, Mogadishu, stating they endanger the legitimacy, unity of the nation, and the future of Somalia’s statehood.

They firmly emphasized that defending the Constitution is not a matter of opposition politics or personal interests, but a national duty incumbent upon all officials and public institutions.

The press release noted that the Federal Constitution is still provisional, and there exist fundamental articles that require broad consensus, such as: Power-sharing and separation of powers, Management of natural resources, The structure of the judiciary and its independence, and The relationship between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States.

The MPs argued that any amendment that does not emerge from national dialogue, political agreement, and constitutional procedure damages the state-building system and could lead to political conflict and social division.

Furthermore, they warned that rushing constitutional amendments could specifically undermine public confidence, security, and national stability, and could open the door to preemptive conflict. They called upon federal leaders, member states, the opposition, and the general public to take shared responsibility and opt for inclusive national dialogue and a comprehensive agreement.

The press release also touched on the role of constitutional institutions, noting that the Independent Constitutional Review and Implementation Commission and the Federal Parliament have the legal mandate regarding the amendment process, and unilateral steps should be avoided.

Finally, the MPs sent a message to the international community, stating that support for Somalia should be tied to three fundamental principles: inclusive national dialogue, a comprehensive agreement, and respect for the Constitution. They affirmed that defending the Constitution is a defence of citizens’ rights, national unity, and the future of Somali children, and is a national duty from which there can be no retreat.

The opposition MPs represent the political and legal counterargument to the government’s push for constitutional change, directly addressing the crisis stemming from the failed parliamentary sessions. The issue is not merely political obstruction, but a defence of foundational state-building principles.

The MPs shift the debate from the content of the amendments to the process. Their central claim is that the current push is “non-consensual” and bypasses official procedures. This delegitimizes the government’s actions by painting them as illegal and unilateral, contrasting with the constitutional requirement for broad agreement on core issues.

By linking the amendments to dangers for “national unity,” “legitimacy,” and “the future of statehood,” they elevate their opposition from partisan politics to a patriotic duty. This is a powerful rhetorical move to gain public sympathy and isolate the government as reckless.

A key legal point is the reminder that Somalia’s constitution is provisional. The listed contentious issues (power-sharing, resources, federalism, judiciary) are precisely the ones that have caused continuous conflict (as seen in the Baidoa and Puntland reports). The argument is that these cannot be settled by a simple parliamentary majority but require a national compact.

The statement clearly outlines the risks: erosion of public trust, insecurity, political conflict, and social division. This serves as both a prediction and a warning to the international community, suggesting that supporting a forced amendment process will lead to more instability, not less.

This is a direct effort to shape the external narrative. By asking the international community to tie its support to “inclusive dialogue, comprehensive agreement, and constitutional respect,” they are lobbying foreign donors and diplomats to pressure the government to halt its current path. This counters the government’s likely argument that it is acting to strengthen the state.