Lasting peace in Somalia requires addressing social grievances, healing past conflicts, and establishing a robust justice system, in addition to political reconciliation initiatives, writes Farhia Mohamud.
Since the civil war ended in Somalia, peace efforts have mainly focused on political reconciliation and state-building. Yet, there is a significant need for social reconciliation in the country, which cannot be achieved without an effective justice system. True and lasting peace requires addressing social grievances, healing past conflicts, and establishing a justice system capable of delivering fairness and accountability. Without this foundation, political reconciliation will remain fragile and superficial.
Somalia adopted a federal system in 2012. It emerged from the Arta conference in the 2000s, at which participants agreed on a 4.5 power-sharing formula. The ‘4’ refers to the number of major or dominant clans in Somalia, and the ‘5’ to the number of minority clans, which now have half the power the four main clans claim. This was the culmination of numerous political reconciliation meetings in neighboring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti.
The political agreement was doubtless the result of process fatigue among Somali politicians, representatives of neighboring countries, the United Nations, and other interested parties. Arguably the greatest contributing factor, however, is that the conference succeeded in limiting the influence of warlords and opened the door for local civil society to participate.
The history of the agreement shows that social reconciliation is highly needed in Somalia, as the foundation of state-building was consultations with civil society. In addition, the 4.5 formula is based on clan lineage, which shapes social relations.
With a view to social reconciliation, the federal government of Somalia issued the National Reconciliation Framework (NRF), which was approved in 2019 and launched in 2024. The NRF borrows its root principles from Somali xeer practices, historically used by clan elders to mediate and bring peace among warring clans and subclans. It also borrows from Islamic law, supported by the provisional constitution, which nullifies any law or practice that goes against sharia. This theoretically gives the NRF a powerful grounding in and buy-in among Somali communities.
Yet, things do not look very promising for the NRF. Two member states, Jubbaland and Puntland, were not part of the consultations that resulted in the NRF. Jubbaland joined the consultations only after its conflict with the federal government ended.
This demonstrates that Somalia’s peacebuilding and transitional justice efforts have taken a top-down approach, starting with political reconciliation and moving to social reconciliation through the NRF while skipping the foundational step of building a strong and effective justice system. Without this foundation, efforts at reconciliation may struggle to take root. Although there has been time since 2012 to make progress in this area, strengthening the justice system continues to be overlooked.
Currently, Somalia has no constitutional court tasked to mediate between governmental bodies and handle constitution-related disputes. The ordinary courts are not equipped with qualifed staff and are plagued by nepotisim and lack of transparency. Most importantly, law enforcement personnel mostly fail to implement court verdicts.
An effective justice system would move Somalia closer to giving voice to the masses, instead of being dominated by a few politicians who come and go from public office as spokespeople of the clans they actually represent. The clan qouta system allows a few people to elect a member of parliament under an ‘indirect’ election without ensuring their accountability.
An effective justice system would also allow individuals to experience different forms of transitional justice, such as truth-telling, reparations, and prosecutions, and other accountability measures implemented nationally. Traditional reconciliation processes emphasize compensation and clan negotiations rather than punishment, and they do not require an able central government. These methods have historically helped manage inter-clan tensions, especially in rural areas where state authority is absent. However, they lack mechanisms for individual accountabiltiy, gender justice, and addressing state crimes – gaps only an effective national justice system can fill.
Finally, an effective justice system can resolve past grievances by implementing agreements made under xeer and sharia. It can limit and deal with high-level political disagreements between federal and state governments. It can provide justice for current atrocities due to terrorism, abuse of power, and socioeconomic violations. And it can bring citizens closer to the trust they need in the government and ensure equality of all under the law.
The need for both political and social reconciliation in Somalia is not just a theoretical dilemma but an on-the-ground reality. Political power has been distributed based on clans, yet conflicts within and between clans have not been resolved. The NRF and other government initiatives will only be formal gestures until a proper justice system is established, pre-existing conflicts are addressed, and trust is restored.
Practices like xeer and sharia existed long before the current dispensation, providing strong foundations for social reconciliation efforts that promote peace and transitional justice. However, xeer alone is not sufficient; it must be complemented by state supervision and legal frameworks that respect both Islamic principles and constitutional standards. This is necessary to address gaps in traditional practices – such as exclusion, lack of procedural clarity, and uneven enforcement – while ensuring that justice aligns with Somalia’s religious and social values.
Farhia Mohamud
Farhia Mohamud is a Researcher at Somali Public Agenda.