THE OATH-TAKING OF THE TWO MINISTERS YESTERDAY

 THE OATH-TAKING OF THE TWO MINISTERS YESTERDAY

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND: PERIODS BETWEEN THE APPOINTMENT, ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE, APPROVAL, AND OATH-TAKING OF STATE OFFICIALS

The Constitution of the Republic of Somaliland clearly regulates the procedures governing the appointment, approval, and oath-taking of ministers and other officials whom the Constitution requires to pass through these constitutional stages.

Taking, as an example, the recent case of the two Ministers—the Minister of Information of the Republic of Somaliland and the Minister of Agriculture Development—in 2026, several important legal questions arise concerning the periods prescribed by the Constitution between the stages of appointment, assumption of office, parliamentary approval, and oath-taking.

APPOINTMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE

The President of Somaliland, H.E. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (Irro), appointed the Ministers of Information and Agriculture, together with other officials, on 5 April 2026.

Following their appointment:

The Minister of Agriculture assumed office on 8 April 2026.

The Minister of Information assumed office on 11 April 2026.

APPROVAL BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The two Ministers, together with other officials, were approved by the House of Representatives of the Republic of Somaliland on 4 May 2026.

The relevant constitutional provision is Article 94(3), which states:

> “Within thirty (30) days after the House of Representatives approves the appointment of a Minister or Deputy Minister, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall administer the oath of office to him/her, in the presence of the President or Vice-President, if the President is absent from the country or is ill.”

Under this provision, the period for taking the oath begins on the date on which the House of Representatives approves the appointment of the Minister or any other official whose appointment is subject to this constitutional requirement.

The approval of the two Ministers took place on 4 May 2026, while their oath-taking took place on 28 August 2026.

Accordingly, 116 days elapsed between approval and oath-taking, whereas Article 94(3) provides for a period of 30 days.

This means that the constitutionally prescribed period was exceeded by 86 days, amounting to almost four times the period stipulated by the Constitution.

This raises a clear constitutional question as to whether the 30-day period prescribed under Article 94(3) was complied with in the oath-taking of the two Ministers.

QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION

Several important legal questions arise:

1. Who bears the constitutional responsibility for ensuring that the prescribed period between appointment, approval, and oath-taking is observed and implemented?

Is it the President?

Is it the House of Representatives?

Is it the Office of the Attorney General?

Is it the appointed official, who merely awaits completion of the constitutional process?

Or is it the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who administers the oath and therefore summons or calls the official for the oath-taking?

2. Who should be held accountable for a failure, delay, or omission in fulfilling the constitutional obligation prescribed by these provisions?

---

ARTICLE 114: THE THREE-MONTH TEMPORARY PERIOD

The issue does not end with Article 94(3). Article 114(3) is also important. Its title concerns the “Appointment and Dismissal of Heads of Institutions.”

Article 114(3) provides:

> “National officials whose approval is required by the Constitution shall not hold office on a temporary basis for more than three months.”

If the period of temporary service is calculated from the date on which the official assumed office, the position would be as follows:

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

The Minister assumed office on 8 April 2026.

8 April → 8 July 2026 = 3 months.

Therefore, if the three-month period under Article 114(3) begins from the date of assumption of office, the temporary period would have expired on 8 July 2026.

However, the Minister of Agriculture took the constitutional oath on 28 August 2026.

That represents an apparent excess of 51 days beyond the three-month period.

MINISTER OF INFORMATION

The Minister assumed office on 11 April 2026.

11 April → 11 July 2026 = 3 months.

Accordingly, if the three-month period under Article 114(3) is calculated from the date of assumption of office, the temporary period would have expired on 11 July 2026.

However, the Minister of Information took the oath on 28 August 2026.

That represents an apparent excess of 48 days

THE CONSTITUTIONAL OATH — ARTICLE 129

ARTICLE 129: THE CONSTITUTIONAL OATH

Article 129 provides:

> “The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is also the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court, shall administer the oath to every person whom the Constitution requires to take this Constitutional Oath before he/she commences his/her duties; the President shall likewise take the oath.”

The constitutional oath states:

> “I swear by Almighty Allah that I will be faithful to the religion of Islam, my country Somaliland, and its people, and that I will govern them with equality and justice throughout my term of office.”

This provision establishes an important constitutional principle: a person who is required by the Constitution to take the oath must take that oath before commencing his or her duties.

---

THE THREE PROVISIONS AND THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL STAGES

When the three provisions are read together, the Constitution appears to establish three distinct requirements:

Article 129 provides that the constitutional oath must be taken before a person commences his or her duties.

Article 94(3) provides that a Minister or Deputy Minister must take the oath within 30 days after the House of Representatives approves his or her appointment.

Article 114(3) provides that an official whose appointment requires constitutional approval may not hold office on a temporary basis for more than three months.

Accordingly, the circumstances surrounding the two Ministers raise several important constitutional questions:

1. If assumption of office constitutes the commencement of the official's duties, how can this be reconciled with Article 129, which requires the constitutional oath to be taken before the official commences his or her duties?

2. How can the oath-taking on 28 August 2026 be reconciled with the 30-day period under Article 94(3), given that parliamentary approval took place on 4 May 2026?

3. Do Ministers or other officials hold office on a temporary basis before parliamentary approval, or do they continue to hold office on a temporary basis until they take the constitutional oath? How should Articles 114(3) and 129 be interpreted and reconciled?

---

CONCLUSION

Based on the dates set out above, the clearest provision against which the timing can be measured is Article 94(3).

The House of Representatives approved the two Ministers on 4 May 2026, while they took the constitutional oath on 28 August 2026—a period of 116 days, rather than the 30 days prescribed by Article 94(3).

At the same time, if the assumption of office on 8 April and 11 April 2026 is regarded as the commencement of their temporary tenure, an additional constitutional issue arises under Article 114(3), because the three-month periods expired on 8 July and 11 July 2026, respectively, while the oath-taking occurred on 28 August 2026.

Article 129, meanwhile, establishes the fundamental principle that the constitutional oath must precede the commencement of official duties.

Accordingly, the relationship between appointment, assumption of office, parliamentary approval, and oath-taking of national officials should be examined and applied consistently with the Constitution of the Republic of Somaliland.

This is not merely a question concerning the two Ministers used in this example. Similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions in the past and have been discussed publicly, but they have not, to my knowledge, been subjected to a definitive constitutional clarification.

SPECIAL NOTE

The two Ministers referred to in this analysis are not the only officials to whom this issue may apply. They are used as a recent and illustrative example of the broader constitutional question concerning the sequence and timing of appointment, assumption of office, approval, and oath-taking.

Furthermore, where an appointed official is placed in such a situation, the official should not necessarily be regarded as personally responsible for the consequences arising from delays in approval or oath-taking, particularly where the official has no authority over either the parliamentary approval process or the administration of the constitutional oath.

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (1960–2001)

https://www.academia.edu/175599879/CONSTITUTIONAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SOMALILAND_1960_2001_Compiled_and_Written_by_Lawyer_Muse_Yusuf_Mohamed

The constitutional history of the Republic of Somaliland has passed through a number of distinct events and stages, closely connected with the history of Somaliland’s statehood, the reconstruction of national institutions, and the political process following 18 May 1991.

The constitutional development of Somaliland passed through Eleven major stages:

1. The Constitution of Somaliland of 1960 – The first Constitution of Somaliland, which came into force on 26 June 1960, when Somaliland gained independence from the United Kingdom.
2. The Reassertion of Somaliland’s Independence on 18 May 1991 – The Burao Conference resolved that Somaliland should reassert the independence it had achieved on 26 June 1960.
3. The National Charter, 1993–1997 – The National Charter became the political and constitutional foundation of the transitional period, followed by the 1995 extension of the National Charter.
4. The Interim Constitution of 156 Articles – Adopted in February 1997, it became the constitutional foundation of the transitional period.
5. The Constitutional Review & Revision Process, 1998–2000 – The Interim Constitution was reviewed and amended as part of the process of preparing a permanent Constitution to be submitted to a national referendum.
6. The Extension of the Constitutional Referendum Timetable, February 2000 – The process of constitutional approval and preparations for the referendum resulted in an extension of the timetable for completing the constitutional process.
7. Adoption of the Constitution by the Two Houses – The two Houses of Parliament approved the Constitution on 30 April 2000. The Constitution consisted of 130 Articles.
8. The Constitutional Referendum Law and Preparations for the Referendum – The Constitutional Referendum Law, Law No. 16/2000, was enacted, and the institutional and committee arrangements for organizing and conducting the referendum were established.
9. The National Constitutional Referendum – 31 May 2001 The national constitutional referendum was held on 31 May 2001, allowing the people of Somaliland to approve or reject the Constitution adopted by the two Houses of Parliament. The Constitution was approved by a large majority of the voters who participated in the referendum.
10. The Entry Into Force Of The Constitution – Following its approval through the national referendum, the Constitution entered into force and became the supreme legal foundation of the constitutional order of the Republic of Somaliland. Its entry into force marked the completion of the constitutional process that had begun with the reconstruction of Somaliland’s constitutional institutions after 18 May 1991

.
Expiry of the Transitional Period
The three-year period during which the 1997 Constitution was to operate provisionally expired on 16 February 2000.
In February 2000, the two Houses of Parliament held a joint session and extended the provisional constitutional period by one year, allowing the constitutional review and finalization process to continue.
The 130-Article Constitution – 30 April 2000
In April 2000, the two Houses of Parliament received a new draft Constitution consisting of 130 Articles, prepared by the parliamentary committee appointed to undertake the constitutional review and reform process.
The two Houses approved the Constitution by a majority vote on 30 April 2000.

https://www.academia.edu/175599879/CONSTITUTIONAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SOMALILAND_1960_2001_Compiled_and_Written_by_Lawyer_Muse_Yusuf_Mohamed

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELECTIONS OF THE SOMALILAND

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELECTIONS OF THE SOMALILAND

Elections in the Republic of Somaliland are generally divided into two main categories: constitutional elections and non-constitutional elections regulated by specific laws.

Constitutional elections are those explicitly provided for in the Constitution of Somaliland. These include:

• Presidential elections

• House of Representatives elections

• House of Elders (Guurti) elections

Although the Constitution provides for elections to the House of Elders, such elections have never been held directly since the re-establishment of Somaliland. Instead, members of the Guurti have continued through traditional selection methods and periodic term extensions.

On the other hand, there are elections that are not directly detailed in the Constitution but are regulated through separate electoral laws enacted by Parliament. These include:

• Local council elections

• Political organizations and national parties elections

• Regional council elections

Regional council elections have also never been conducted in Somaliland up to the present time, despite being recognized in law.

These latter elections are governed by specific laws which define:

• the qualifications required for candidates, such as age, education, citizenship, and experience;

• the method by which elections are contested;

• who is eligible to participate;

• the electoral and party system;

• the allocation of seats; and

• the procedures for campaigning and voter registration.

For example, local council elections and House of Representatives elections are contested through the national political party system, while political organization elections serve as a mechanism for determining which political organizations qualify to become official national parties.

The first election in Somaliland conducted through a popular public vote took place on 17 February 1960. In that election, the first Legislative Assembly of the State of Somaliland was elected.

The election was held under a constituency-based electoral system, in which the country was divided into electoral districts. Three political parties contested the election, and 33 members of parliament were elected from six electoral constituencies.

The election was governed by a law known as the Somaliland Regular Legislative Assembly Ordinance, 1959. This law provided the legal framework for the election and specified:

• The total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly;

• The number of representatives allocated to each electoral constituency;

• The qualifications required for candidates;

• The qualifications and eligibility of voters; and

• Other electoral procedures and regulations governing the conduct of the election.

2. The next major election in Somaliland was the Local Council Elections and Political Organizations Competition held on 15 December 2002.

This election used a closed-list proportional representation system. Under this system, each political organization presented a closed list of candidates, and voters cast their votes for the political organization rather than for individual candidates.

The seats won by each organization in a district were allocated according to the total number of votes received. Candidates obtained seats based on their order on the party list. For example, if a political organization won four seats in a district, the first four candidates listed in that organization’s candidate list would become councilors.

At the national level, the three political organizations that either:

• obtained at least 20% of the votes in the six regions, or

• received the highest total votes nationwide,

would qualify to become official national political parties.

The election was governed by several laws, including:

• The Presidential and Local Council Elections Law No. 20/2001;

• The Regulation of Political Associations and National Parties Law No. 14/2000; and

• The Regional and District Self-Administration Law.

• The third election in Somaliland took place on 14 April 2003. It was the first direct presidential election held exclusively in Somaliland through a popular vote. This election, along with three subsequent presidential elections, was conducted under the same constitutional framework in accordance with Article 81 of the Constitution of the Republic of Somaliland.

Under this system, presidential elections are contested by political parties, and victory is determined by a simple majority — the candidate receiving one vote more than the others wins the election. The nature and procedure of presidential elections are specifically provided for under Article 83 of the Constitution, titled “The Electoral Procedure.”

• Somaliland’s fourth election was the House of Representatives election held on 29 September 2005. This election, and the one that followed the same model, was contested by national political parties in accordance with Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Somaliland. The election was conducted through regional constituencies, with seats allocated among the regions.

• The election held on 28 November 2012 was different from the previous election of its type. In this election, both newly formed political organizations and existing political parties competed. Unlike the 2002 local elections, voters directly elected individual local council candidates rather than voting only for party lists.

A total of two existing national parties and five new political organizations contested the election.

• The next election took place on 13 November 2017 and was Somaliland’s third presidential election. It was conducted in the same manner as the two previous presidential elections because the Constitution clearly defines both the electoral system and the entities eligible to compete.

• This was followed by a new type of election known as a combined election. Held on 31 May 2021, it simultaneously elected:

• the third House of Representatives chosen through direct popular vote; and

• the local councils.

In this election, national political parties contested both elections concurrently.

• The next election was Somaliland’s fourth presidential election together with the competition for national political parties and political organizations. Unlike previous local council-linked political association contests, this election did not involve the election of local councils.

Voters cast two separate ballots:

• one for the presidential election; and

• one for a political organization or national party.

The three organizations or parties receiving the highest number of votes nationwide became the official national parties. Unlike the 2002 system, this election was not conditioned on obtaining 20% of the vote in each region.

The elections conducted without voter registration were:

• The 17 February 1960 election;

• The 15 December 2002 election;

• The 14 April 2003 presidential election;

• The 29 September 2005 House of Representatives election; and

• The 28 November 2012 local council and political organizations election.

The elections conducted with voter registration were:

• The 26 June 2010 presidential election;

• The 13 November 2017 presidential election;

• The 31 May 2021 combined parliamentary and local council elections; and

• The 13 November 2024 presidential and political parties election.

Lawyer Muse Yusuf Mohamed.

Senior Member of Somaliland Lawyers association SOLLA 

Garyaqaan Muuse Yuusuf 

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (1960–2001)

 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (1960–2001)

Formation, Transitional Development, Revision, Adoption and Referendum of the Constitution 

The constitutional history of the Republic of Somaliland has passed through a number of distinct events and stages, closely connected with the history of Somaliland’s statehood, the reconstruction of national institutions, and the political process following 18 May 1991.

The constitutional development of Somaliland passed through ten major stages

Information relating to the constitutional drafting process had been scattered across different sources and archives, including historical papers and documents, journals, various Internet websites, radio recordings, and video materials. Some of these materials were preserved in archives that were not readily accessible, while the quality of some audio recordings and video materials was also poor.

https://www.academia.edu/175599879/CONSTITUTIONAL_HISTORY_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SOMALILAND_1960_2001_Compiled_and_Written_by_Lawyer_Muse_Yusuf_Mohamed

HISTORY-OF-THE-REPUBLIC-OF-SOMALILAND-1960-2001

THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE CONCERNING THE PRESIDING OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE NEW HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES — 3 AUGUST 2021

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE CONCERNING THE PRESIDING OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE NEW HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES — 3 AUGUST 2021

Following the House of Representatives election held on 31 May 2021, the newly elected House convened for its first session on 3 August 2021. The session was intended to administer the oath of office to the newly elected members and to elect the Speaker and the two Deputy Speakers.

This occasion gave rise to a constitutional and institutional debate concerning the interpretation and application of Article 44(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Somaliland.

1. What Article 44(3) Provides

Article 44(3) provides that the new House shall be opened by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who administers the oath of office to its members. Thereafter, the session is to be presided over by the oldest member of the House, and the House shall elect from among its members a Speaker and two Deputy Speakers.

The provision therefore establishes two distinct stages:

1. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — opens the session and administers the oath of office; and
2. The oldest member of the House — presides over the session until the Speaker and two Deputy Speakers are elected.

However, the Constitution does not expressly address the situation in which the oldest member is himself or herself a candidate for Speaker.

2. The Particular Circumstances of 3 August 2021

After the newly elected members had taken their oath of office, the question arose as to who should preside over the session because the oldest member of the new House was himself a candidate for the Speakership.

This created a constitutional gap: Article 44(3) expressly identifies the oldest member as the person who should preside over the session, but it does not establish an alternative procedure where that member is contesting the very office that the House is about to elect.

A proposal was therefore made that the session could instead be presided over by either the Speaker of the House of Elders (Guurti) or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, both of whom were present.

The Speaker of the House of Elders reportedly declined to preside, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court subsequently presided over the proceedings.

3. The Debate Concerning Separation of Powers

This development raised a broader constitutional question concerning the separation of powers.

The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary, whereas the House of Representatives is a constituent institution of the Legislative Branch. The question therefore arose whether the Chief Justice, after performing the specific constitutional function expressly assigned to him under Article 44(3)—opening the session and administering the oath—could continue to preside over the internal proceedings of the House, particularly the election of its own Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

The opposing argument was that the Constitution had not anticipated the particular circumstances that arose. Since the oldest member was himself a candidate for Speaker, the Constitution did not provide an express alternative. A practical solution was therefore required to enable the House to proceed with the election of its leadership.

4. The Constitutional Silence

The central issue was that the Constitution does not expressly regulate this particular situation.

Article 44(3) identifies the oldest member as the person who should preside over the session, but it is silent on what should happen if that member is a candidate for Speaker.

The resulting constitutional question may therefore be formulated as follows:

> Where the oldest member of the newly elected House of Representatives is himself a candidate for Speaker, may he continue to preside over the election, or must another constitutionally permissible mechanism be found?

This question should be distinguished from the separate question of whether the Chief Justice has constitutional authority to preside over the House's internal election proceedings. Article 44(3) does not expressly confer such authority on the Chief Justice.

5. Constitutional Significance of the 2021 Episode

The events of 3 August 2021 demonstrated that, although the 2001 Constitution established the fundamental institutional framework of the Republic, certain specific procedural circumstances were not expressly anticipated.

The episode highlights the importance of distinguishing between:

• powers expressly conferred by the Constitution;
• powers arising through constitutional interpretation;
• the internal procedural autonomy of Parliament; and
• the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

The incident also illustrates the practical difficulties that may arise when a constitutional provision establishes a general rule but does not provide a mechanism for an exceptional circumstance.

The constitutional difficulty was ultimately resolved procedurally, and the House proceeded to elect its leadership. Abdirisaq Khalif Ahmed was elected Speaker, while Saeed Mire Giire and Ali Hamud Jibril were elected Deputy Speakers.

CONCLUSION

The events of 3 August 2021 constitute another significant example of a constitutional question arising from an unaddressed procedural circumstance under Article 44(3).

The Constitution clearly provides that the Chief Justice shall open the first session and administer the oath of office to the members. It then provides that the session shall be presided over by the oldest member of the House, who remains in that role until the House elects its Speaker and two Deputy Speakers.

The Constitution, however, does not specify what should happen where the oldest member is himself a candidate for Speaker. This omission created a constitutional and procedural question concerning the appropriate person to preside over the election.

The episode is therefore significant in the constitutional history of Somaliland as another example of the practical challenges arising from constitutional silence, particularly where the functioning of one branch of government may intersect with the constitutional independence and institutional autonomy of another.

.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE CONCERNING THE FILLING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VACANCY FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT EGAL

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE CONCERNING THE FILLING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VACANCY FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT EGAL

The death of President Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal on 3 May 2002 placed the Republic of Somaliland in an important constitutional situation. President Egal died at a time when the first presidential election under the multiparty system had not yet been held. However, elections for political associations and local councils had already taken place, and the process had resulted in the recognition of national political parties.

This particular constitutional circumstance gave rise to a debate over which provision of the Constitution governed the filling of the presidential vacancy.

1. The Two Constitutional Provisions at Issue

The debate principally concerned two provisions of the 2001 Constitution: Article 130(4) and Article 89(2).

Article 130(4) — Transitional Provision

Article 130(4) was one of the transitional provisions of the Constitution. It provided that, if any of the circumstances specified in Article 86 occurred in respect of the President or Vice-President, pending the establishment of the multiparty system and direct elections, the two Houses of Parliament sitting jointly would elect a President and Vice-President, or either of them, within 45 days.

During the period preceding that election, the Speaker of the House of Elders (Guurti) would temporarily exercise the functions of the Presidency.

Article 89(2) — Filling a Presidential Vacancy

Article 89(2), on the other hand, established a general mechanism for filling the presidential office when one of the circumstances specified in Article 86 occurred during the final two years of the President's five-year term.

Under this provision, the Vice-President would assume the office of President for the remainder of the term. The President would then nominate a new Vice-President from among the members of the House of Representatives, subject to approval by the two Houses sitting jointly.

2. Why Did the Constitutional Debate Arise?

The death of President Egal occurred during a particularly significant constitutional period.

The Constitution contained a transitional provision specifically addressing the period before the establishment of the multiparty system and direct elections, while Article 89 established a general mechanism for presidential succession.

According to the official constitutional explanation of the Government of Somaliland, Article 130(4) appeared to provide a transitional mechanism relevant to such a situation. Nevertheless, following an emergency meeting of the leadership of the two Houses on 3 May 2002, it was decided that Article 89(2) would be applied rather than Article 130(4).

The same official account indicates that this was not a formal decision of the two Houses acting jointly, and that the Supreme Court did not, at that time, issue a formal judgment or advisory opinion resolving the constitutional question.

3. Which Provision Was Actually Applied After President Egal's Death?

Following the death of President Egal, Vice-President Dahir Rayaale Kaahin assumed the office of President.

President Egal died on 3 May 2002, and President Rayaale was sworn in as President later that evening.

According to the official constitutional account, Article 89(2) was in practice applied. President Rayaale therefore assumed the presidency for the remainder of President Egal's term.

Ahmed Yusuf Yasin was subsequently appointed Vice-President, and his appointment was approved by the two Houses sitting jointly.

Thus, as a matter of historical practice, the succession following President Egal's death was carried out under Article 89(2).

4. The Argument in Favour of Applying Article 130(4)

Nevertheless, there was a substantial constitutional argument in favour of applying Article 130(4).

That argument was based principally on the wording of the provision and the constitutional circumstances existing on 3 May 2002.

In particular:

The first presidential election under the multiparty system had not yet been held;

The transition to a system of direct presidential elections had not yet been fully completed;

Article 130(4) expressly referred to the period “pending the establishment of the multiparty system and direct elections”;

Consequently, it could be argued that the constitutional circumstances existing on 3 May 2002 remained within the scope of Article 130(4).

If this interpretation had been adopted, the two Houses sitting jointly would have elected a President and Vice-President within 45 days, while the Speaker of the House of Elders would have temporarily exercised the functions of the Presidency pending the election.

This interpretation would therefore have treated the absence of the first direct presidential election as the decisive factor in determining whether the transitional provision remained operative.

5. The Argument in Favour of Applying Article 89(2)

There was, however, a competing constitutional interpretation.

According to this view, by the time President Egal died, Somaliland had already entered the multiparty political system, particularly because elections for political associations and local councils had taken place and national political parties had emerged.

Consequently, Article 130(4) could be regarded as having ceased to govern the situation.

Under this interpretation, Article 89 was the operative constitutional provision governing presidential succession.

Because the presidential vacancy occurred during the final two years of the five-year presidential term, Article 89(2) provided the applicable mechanism:

1. The Vice-President would assume the presidency for the remainder of the term; and
2. The President would nominate a new Vice-President from among the members of the House of Representatives;
3. The nomination would require approval by the two Houses sitting jointly.

This was, in substance, the procedure actually followed after President Egal's death.

6. The Central Constitutional Question

The constitutional issue therefore went beyond the simple difference between the 45-day mechanism under Article 130(4) and the succession mechanism under Article 89(2).

The fundamental question was:

> Did Article 130(4) remain operative because the first presidential election under the multiparty system and direct-election framework had not yet taken place, or had Somaliland's transition into the multiparty constitutional system rendered the transitional provision inapplicable, thereby making Article 89 the governing provision?

This question illustrates a significant problem of constitutional interpretation: the relationship between transitional provisions and permanent constitutional provisions when both appear capable of applying to the same factual circumstances.

7. The Constitutional Significance of the Event

The death of President Egal became one of the earliest major tests of the operation of the 2001 Constitution.

The transfer of presidential authority from President Egal to Vice-President Dahir Rayaale Kaahin took place peacefully, and Rayaale assumed the presidency on 3 May 2002.

Nevertheless, the episode demonstrated:

the continuing importance of transitional constitutional provisions;

the need for clear procedures governing constitutional succession;

the possibility of constitutional uncertainty where transitional and permanent provisions overlap;

the importance of authoritative constitutional interpretation; and

the need to distinguish between what the Constitution expressly provides and what was actually done in practice.

The event therefore has significance beyond the succession itself. It provides an important example of how a newly established constitutional order may encounter practical questions that were not expressly anticipated by the constitutional text.

CONCLUSION

The constitutional debate surrounding the filling of the presidential vacancy following the death of President Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal is an important episode in the constitutional history of the Republic of Somaliland.

Article 130(4) established a special transitional mechanism for filling the presidential office pending the establishment of the multiparty system and direct elections. Article 89(2), by contrast, established the ordinary constitutional mechanism for succession where a presidential vacancy occurred during the final two years of the President's five-year term.

When President Egal died on 3 May 2002, the two provisions appeared capable of generating competing constitutional interpretations. On one interpretation, Article 130(4) remained applicable because the first direct presidential election had not yet been held. On the other, Somaliland had already entered the multiparty constitutional system through the political-associations and local-government elections, meaning that the transitional provision had ceased to govern the situation.

In practice, the leadership of the two Houses proceeded on the basis of Article 89(2), and Vice-President Dahir Rayaale Kaahin assumed the presidency on the evening of 3 May 2002. Ahmed Yusuf Yasin was subsequently appointed Vice-President with the approval of the two Houses sitting jointly.

From a constitutional-history perspective, however, it is important to distinguish clearly between the text of the Constitution, the constitutional interpretation advanced at the time, the procedure actually followed, and the absence or presence of an authoritative judicial determination.

Accordingly, unless a formal and authoritative constitutional interpretation from the relevant period establishes otherwise, the episode should not be presented as conclusively proving that either Article 130(4) or Article 89(2) was the only legally possible provision. Rather, it should be understood as a significant example of the constitutional uncertainty that may arise when transitional provisions and permanent constitutional rules overlap during a period of institutional transition.

HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND AND ITS LEADERSHIP (1960–Present)

https://share.google/iCxE2H8RPzc3jI8O4

(10) HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND AND https://share.google/iCxE2H8Rhttps://share.google/iCxE2H8RPzc3jI8O4Pzc3jI8O4

HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (1960–Present)

Scope of the Document

This document provides a concise historical, constitutional, legal, and electoral account of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Somaliland. It covers the composition and size of the House; methods of election and selection of members; clan and regional representation; electoral regions and districts; voting procedures; terms of office and their extensions; elections of the House leadership; candidates and election results; and other relevant legal and institutional developments concerning the House and its electoral history.

The introductory description of the House of Representatives presented in this work is based on the House of Representatives currently in existence.

The House of Representatives of the Republic of Somaliland is a national constitutional institution and one of the two Houses of the Parliament of