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.