MOGADISHU — President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is facing renewed criticism over what critics describe as attempts to shift responsibility for his administration’s political failures onto opposition groups within the Hawiye community, amid growing political divisions and concerns over Somalia’s national stability.
Critics argue that the president must take direct responsibility for the political decisions, governance challenges, constitutional disputes, alleged abuse of executive authority and grievances that have emerged during his administration, rather than seeking to share the political consequences with opposition figures.
The criticism centres on the argument that leadership accountability cannot be avoided through political manoeuvring or the redistribution of blame. As head of state, President Hassan Sheikh bears primary responsibility for the direction of his government, its decisions and the consequences of its policies.
Questions Raised Over the Role of Hawiye Opposition
The emerging debate has also raised questions about the position of Hawiye opposition figures, particularly those who have challenged the administration’s policies.
Critics maintain that opposition groups should not be turned into political shields for decisions they did not make or policies they opposed. They argue that disagreements within the Hawiye political constituency should not be exploited to weaken opposition voices or redistribute responsibility for government shortcomings.
They further warn that attempts to bring opposition figures into political arrangements without addressing their fundamental concerns could deepen mistrust rather than resolve the country’s political crisis.
Former Allies Face Questions Over Their Political Responsibility
Beyond the Hawiye political opposition, criticism is also being directed at other Somali political actors who previously supported President Hassan Sheikh’s administration.
Some of these figures had defended the government’s political direction and supported decisions that are now at the centre of growing controversy. Critics argue that those who previously stood behind the administration should acknowledge their own political responsibility instead of presenting themselves as neutral observers at a time of national difficulty.
The argument is that opposition figures from other Somali communities should have challenged policies they considered harmful much earlier, rather than waiting until political disagreements escalated into wider national concerns.
Those who previously supported the administration, including individuals associated with security institutions, are also being urged to reconsider their positions and contribute to a genuine national dialogue.
National Stability Must Come Before Political Survival
The debate comes amid wider concerns about political divisions, governance, security and the future direction of Somalia.
Critics argue that efforts to engage opposition leaders should not simply be aimed at protecting the president from political pressure. Instead, any genuine reconciliation initiative must address the underlying disputes, restore confidence in constitutional processes and establish meaningful accountability.
They stress that Somalia’s national interests cannot be reduced to protecting an individual president, a political faction or particular community interests.
The central message is that President Hassan Sheikh must accept responsibility for his administration, opposition leaders must remain accountable for their political positions, and former government allies must acknowledge their role in supporting decisions that contributed to the current tensions.
Somalia needs accountability, political honesty and national reconciliation—not political blame-shifting.
The country’s future, critics argue, depends on leadership that places constitutional principles, national unity and public interest above personal and political survival.
