MOGADISHU (SD) – The Federal Parliament of Somalia has officially approved and finalized amendments to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Somalia, as announced by the Speaker of the House of the People, Adan Mohamed Nur (Adan Madobe).

Speaker Madoobe declared that effective today, the finalized constitution has come into force, following a vote by members of both parliamentary houses.

Today’s session was attended by 185 members of the House of the People and 37 members of the Upper House, who voted to approve the amended constitutional provisions.

However, the Somali Future Council and members of the independent Somalia parliamentary opposition have strongly rejected the move by members of both houses to push through amendments to Somalia’s provisional constitution.

Addressing a press conference in Mogadishu, members of the independent parliamentary opposition described the approval of the constitutional amendments as illegal. They claimed they were absent from the proceedings and alleged that some representatives from the federal member states participated in the vote online.

In a separate statement, the Somali Future Council declared that the ratified constitution is not legally valid. The Council stated that it only recognizes the provisional constitution agreed upon in 2012 as the legitimate governing document.

The approval of constitutional amendments by Somalia’s Federal Parliament, announced by Speaker Adan Mohamed Nur (Adan Madoobe), represents a major political development with potentially far-reaching consequences for Somalia’s federal system. Constitutional reform in Somalia is inherently sensitive because the country has operated under a provisional constitution since 2012, and debates over its finalization have long been intertwined with disputes over power-sharing, federalism, and electoral models.

The fact that the amendments were passed despite an opposition boycott immediately raises questions about political legitimacy, even if procedural quorum requirements were technically met. While 185 members of the House of the People and 37 members of the Upper House reportedly voted in favor, the absence of opposition lawmakers and their rejection of the process signal a deep polarization. In fragile political environments, constitutional changes require not only numerical approval but broad consensus to ensure durability and acceptance.

The opposition’s claim that the process was illegal, combined with allegations that some federal member state representatives voted remotely, suggests that the dispute is not only political but procedural. If segments of the political class believe the amendments were rushed or improperly conducted, the revised constitution may face continued contestation. This could weaken its authority, particularly in federal member states that already have strained relations with Mogadishu.

The position of the Somali Future Council, which stated it recognizes only the 2012 provisional constitution, highlights the risk of parallel interpretations of constitutional legitimacy. In practical terms, a constitution that is rejected by influential political actors does not automatically stabilize governance; instead, it may become another arena of conflict. Constitutional frameworks are meant to settle political disputes, not deepen them.

At a broader level, this episode reflects ongoing structural tensions within Somalia’s political system. Key unresolved issues—including the balance of power between the presidency and federal member states, electoral systems, and the scope of parliamentary authority—are often embedded in constitutional debates. Passing amendments without cross-factional agreement may consolidate authority for the current leadership in the short term, but it risks long-term instability if federal states or opposition groups resist implementation.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of these amendments will depend less on their formal passage and more on whether they are accepted across Somalia’s political spectrum. If consensus-building efforts do not follow, the country could face heightened political fragmentation at a time when security and economic challenges already demand institutional cohesion.