What Sharmarke has actually said publicly (as of this week)

His recent public statements have been about de-escalation, not confrontation. He said he does not believe Puntland will declare itself independent, arguing that the current political tensions require dialogue and consensus  (Hiiraan Online) , and said Puntland’s grievances with the Federal Government of Somalia should be addressed through political engagement rather than confrontation  (Hiiraan Online) . Just yesterday, he warned against a possible armed conflict in Galkacyo, arguing that Puntland authorities should not use military force against other Puntland Security Forces without a clear legal reason  (Puntlandpost) , and urged Puntland authorities to exercise restraint, stressing that the situation required dialogue, de-escalation and a negotiated settlement rather than military action (RaxanReeb). 

Worth noting: this was an opinion/commentary piece, and its claims about Sharmarke’s stance don’t fully align with his most recent public statements (which have emphasized dialogue and restraint).

Ali Mahdi Noor

Instead of serving as a moderating and unifying voice during a politically sensitive period, former Somali Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke has come under criticism from political opponents and sections of the Puntland community. They argue that his perceived sympathy for irregular armed groups and extra-institutional political mobilisation risks undermining constitutional authority, deepening political divisions, and destabilising Puntland.
To these critics, the contradiction is difficult to ignore. A former Prime Minister, twice entrusted with defending the Constitution and the rule of law, is now seen as favouring political confrontation over constitutional process. They contend that experienced statesmen should strengthen institutions, encourage dialogue, and uphold democratic norms—not contribute to political polarisation.
Critics further argue that supporting leaders accused of seeking unconstitutional extensions of their mandates is incompatible with democratic governance. In their view, political legitimacy flows from constitutional order, accountable institutions, respect for term limits, and peaceful transfers of power—not personal loyalties or political strategies that inflame division.
Some also contend that Mr. Sharmarke has aligned himself too closely with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s political agenda, raising questions about the independence and impartiality expected of a former national leader. They point to persistent allegations of patronage politics, arguing that, whether ultimately substantiated or not, such perceptions weaken public confidence in democratic institutions and the integrity of political leadership.
At its core, the debate is about the responsibility of former national leaders. Those who have occupied the country’s highest offices are expected to defend constitutional governance, reinforce institutional stability, and promote national reconciliation. Critics argue that any departure from those principles risks deepening political tensions rather than resolving them.
History rarely remembers leaders for their political alliances or short-term victories. It remembers those who defended the Constitution when it was under pressure, protected the rule of law when it was inconvenient, and placed the national interest above partisan calculations. That, ultimately, is the constitutional test of statesmanship.

Abdiladif Ahmed