Garowe vs. Mogadishu: From Looming Collision to Declared Contingency

WAPMEN Editorial | Revisited with the Kismayo Communiqué Context

Somalia is no longer merely staring at an avoidable political crisis — it has now named it, anticipated it, and formally prepared for it. What was previously dismissed as speculative alarmism has been elevated into a written contingency by the Golaha Mustaqbalka Soomaaliya, convened in Kismayo recently.

The federal project is no longer eroding quietly. It is being openly challenged by its own stakeholders — not through bullets or barricades, but through pre-emptive political architecture.

The Kismayo Line in the Sand
The most consequential sentence in the Kismayo Communiqué is not rhetorical — it is procedural and revolutionary:
In the event the Federal President refuses to negotiate a consensual way forward before the end of his mandate on May 15, the Golaha Mustaqbalka Soomaaliya shall pursue an alternative national political arrangement.
Stripped of diplomatic language, this is a formal notice of parallel authority.
For the first time since the end of the Transitional Federal Government era, Somali political actors have collectively stated — in advance — that legitimacy will not be inherited by default. If the incumbent president overstays, stonewalls, or manufactures a transition without consent, the response will not be protest alone. It will be institutional duplication.

From Hypothesis to Doctrine
This declaration fundamentally reframes the earlier Garowe–Mogadishu standoff.
What was once whispered — rival conferences, dual parliaments, competing claims — is now codified as a contingency plan. The Communiqué transforms Garowe’s posture from defensive resistance into conditional statecraft.
Garowe is no longer merely warning against federal overreach; it is preparing to outlive it.

Mogadishu, meanwhile, is betting that inertia, international silence, and the myth of inevitability will carry it past May 15 without consequence.
That bet may prove fatal.
Parallel Government Is Not a Threat — It Is an Admission of Failure
Let us be clear: the emergence of a parallel political track is not a coup against federalism. It is an indictment of its abuse.
When negotiation is refused, mandates are violated, and elections are personalized, legitimacy does not evaporate — it relocates.

Somalia has lived this movie before:
1991: Power claimed without consent → state collapse
2000–2004: Competing authorities → transitional purgatory
2025–2026 (looming): Manufactured continuity → institutional bifurcation
The Kismayo Communiqué is a warning shot meant to prevent the repeat — but it also acknowledges readiness for it.

Garowe’s Calculation vs. Mogadishu’s Hubris
Garowe’s strategy is grounded in one premise: sovereignty is collective, not presidential. The federal center is a trustee, not an owner.
Mogadishu’s strategy rests on a different assumption: if you control the capital, you control the country.
That assumption has failed Somalia repeatedly.
Federal Member States are no longer passive recipients of directives. They are co-authors of the state. The public is no longer illiterate. And the international community, however fatigued, cannot indefinitely recognize an authority whose mandate has expired by its own constitution.

The Fork Has Been Marked
The question is no longer whether Somalia could split into parallel legitimacies.
The question is who forced it there.
A negotiated settlement before May 15 keeps Somalia whole.
A unilateral extension after May 15 triggers the very outcome Villa Somalia claims to fear.
The Kismayo Communiqué did not invent this danger.
It simply named the consequence.
Somalia now stands warned — in writing.

—————
Support WAPMEN — the home of fearless, independent journalism that speaks truth to power across Somalia and the region.
Tel/WhatsApp: +252 90 703 4081.