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.

.