In the sun-baked heart of Somaliland, where the dream of a stable democracy burns brighter than the desert dunes, one institution stands as the last line of defense for ordinary citizens: the judiciary. It is meant to be the fearless guardian of rights, the impartial referee holding the executive and legislature in check. Yet, as revealed in a compelling 2017 analysis by Lawyer Mohamed Ahmed Abdi Bacaluul, Somaliland’s courts are entangled in a web of constitutional flaws, outdated laws, and chronic underfunding that threaten to turn justice into a hollow promise.
The Supreme Court: Pinnacle of Power or Pawn of Politics?
At the apex sits the Supreme Court, the constitutional crown jewel expected to steer national judicial policy with iron independence. But look closer, and the shine fades. The court comprises a Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, and other judges. While the Chief Justice enjoys some parliamentary protection, the rest serve at the pleasure of the President under Article 105(1) of the Constitution. Tenure is fragile, independence illusory.
Decisions require at least three judges, yet this collective structure only amplifies vulnerability. With lower courts buckling under pressure, appeals flood the Supreme Court like a relentless tide. Lawyers, politicians, clerics, and officials swarm its corridors, turning what should be a temple of law into a bustling marketplace of influence. Minor traffic disputes and petty offenses climb all the way to the highest bench—not because of their importance, but because weak procedural rules offer no filter.
The Constitutional Court, nested within this system, has drifted from safeguarding fundamental rights into arbitrating political squabbles between institutions and parties. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have no clear path to challenge unfair administrative decisions by the executive. The Supreme Court is drowning in trivia while the big questions of constitutional justice go unanswered.
Lower Courts: Backbone Under Siege
Descend to the district and regional courts—the everyday arenas where most Somalilanders seek justice—and the cracks widen. Control over appointments, promotions, and dismissals rests with the National Judicial Commission (Article 107). Judges hold just three seats on this body, and two of those can be dismissed without ironclad security. Other branches of government sit at the table, their influence looming like shadows over the bench.
Article 97 promises judicial independence, but contradictory provisions throughout the legal framework render it toothless. Judges, the very backbone of the system, find themselves answerable to politicians and executives rather than the pure rule of law.
A Legal House Built on Shifting Sand
The confusion deepens with the Judicial Administration Law itself. Two versions—Law No. 24/2003 and Law No. 24/04/06—remain technically in force, one with 49 articles, the other with 60. This legislative twins paradox creates daily uncertainty. Neither version properly regulates vital internal operations: how cases are assigned, records kept, or court presidents exercise administrative authority.
Procedural and substantive laws are relics from another era. The Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Code, and Civil Procedure Code desperately need modernization to embrace Sharia principles, constitutional values, and today’s realities—from cybercrime and terrorism to intellectual property in a creative, digital age. Without them, courts stumble through new challenges with outdated tools.
The Human Cost: Judges on the Edge
Judges are human, yet expected to embody integrity under immense pressure. The existing code of conduct is patchy and inconsistently applied. Disciplinary processes smell of political meddling, and public shaming of sitting judges erodes public trust while cases are still pending. There is no robust pension system for these guardians of justice, despite their role in maintaining national stability.
Financially, the judiciary remains a neglected stepchild. Since 1991, while other institutions have grown, courts scrape by on just 2.2% of the national budget in 2016. Courtrooms overflow, facilities crumble, salaries arrive late or prove insufficient. Judges sometimes depend on litigants for basic logistics, a situation that corrodes neutrality and dignity faster than desert winds erode stone.
A Call to Rescue Somaliland’s Justice System
Lawyer Bacaluul’s verdict is sobering: true judicial independence remains unrealized. The Supreme Court leans toward executive influence. The Judicial Commission mixes conflicting interests. Outdated laws and chronic under-resourcing leave courts inefficient, overcrowded, and distrusted.
Yet the recommendations offer a clear roadmap to renewal:
Reform constitutional rules on judicial appointments and tenure for genuine security.
Rebuild the Judicial Commission as a fully independent body with its own budget.
Harmonize and modernize the Judicial Administration Law.
Draft clear cooperation protocols between the Ministry of Justice and courts.
Create a modern Attorney General’s Office law.
Establish a judicial research center to tackle systemic problems.
Boost salaries, pensions, and facilities to match the judiciary’s vital role.
Streamline appeals so the Supreme Court can focus on landmark cases.
Introduce transparent yet dignified disciplinary processes.
Dramatically increase and decentralize the judicial budget with full accountability.
Somaliland’s future as a vibrant democracy hinges on whether its leaders heed this warning. A judiciary that is independent, well-resourced, and respected is not a luxury—it is the bedrock upon which all other freedoms rest. Without urgent repair, the scales of justice will continue to tilt not toward truth, but toward whoever shouts loudest in the corridors of power. The time for half-measures is over; the republic of Somaliland deserves courts that shine as brightly as its democratic aspirations.