The clock is ticking, can they close the gap?

For weeks, negotiations between Somalia’s federal government and a coalition of federal member state leaders and opposition figures have unfolded behind closed doors. The talks have moved through multiple stages, beginning with meetings of technical committees and advancing to direct political engagement between President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and opposition leaders operating under the umbrella of the Somali Future Council. Despite this structured approach, negotiators have yet to bridge differences on several fundamental issues that continue to define Somalia’s current political and constitutional crisis.

At the core of the dispute lies the ongoing review and amendment of Somalia’s 2012 Provisional Constitution. For much of the latter half of the current administration’s term, constitutional reform has been one of the most polarizing political questions in the country. Relations between Mogadishu and two federal member states, Puntland and Jubaland, deteriorated over the issue, creating a deadlock that stalled broader political dialogue for nearly two years.

The federal government argues that amending and finalizing the provisional charter is necessary to resolve longstanding ambiguities in Somalia’s federal system. Parliament adopted a timetable that launched the review process, beginning with drafting proposed amendments and followed by consultations and technical assessments. Lawmakers backing the government maintain that the reforms are intended to clarify the division of powers between Mogadishu and federal member states, define the structure and independence of the judiciary, and establish a clearer framework for future national elections.

However, critics contend that the process lacks consensus and has been advanced at a politically sensitive moment, just months before the federal government’s mandate expires. The opposition bloc insists that the 2012 Provisional Constitution remains the sole legitimate legal framework and that any alterations outside a nationally agreed and inclusive process are invalid. They argue that constitutional changes undertaken without broad political buy-in risk undermining the very federal compact the document is meant to solidify.

Tensions over the issue have spilled into parliamentary proceedings. Several sessions have been suspended amid chaos and heated exchanges between lawmakers. At times, confrontations inside the parliamentary chamber have escalated into disorder. Opposition members claim that some of their colleagues were injured during scuffles.

A second contentious issue concerns the status of certain federal member state presidents (Hirshabele, Galmudug and South West) whose terms have expired. Opposition leaders argue that these regional administrations must renew their mandates through indirect elections to restore political legitimacy.

The president of Puntland, Said Abdullahi Deni, recently sharpened this position in public remarks, stating that while he himself was elected through a recognized process, three other regional presidents remain in office without renewed electoral endorsement. He urged those administrations to organize elections without delay.

This demand intersects with broader concerns about consistency in the application of federal principles and electoral norms. For the opposition, the legitimacy of federal member state leaders cannot be separated from the integrity of national processes. They argue that political credibility at the center depends on comparable standards being upheld in the regions.

The third major issue on the negotiating table is the timing and structure of the next national elections. With the federal government’s term set to expire in roughly three months, opposition figures have pressed for guarantees that elections will be held on schedule and that no mandate extension will be pursued.

Earlier in its tenure, the government advocated for a transition to a one-person, one-vote electoral model, a departure from Somalia’s longstanding indirect system based on clan representation. That proposal encountered resistance from federal member states and opposition actors who questioned the feasibility of organizing universal suffrage within the current timeframe and security environment. In recent weeks, the government has moderated its public stance, signaling flexibility on the electoral model, though it continues to frame electoral reform as a national priority.

For opposition leaders, however, the central concern is procedural clarity and adherence to timelines. They maintain that any uncertainty about the end of the current mandate could destabilize the country.

The latest round of negotiations at Villa Somalia has now stretched beyond a week. the incumbent administration continue to defend the constitutional review as both lawful and necessary, pointing to the parliamentary timetable as evidence of institutional procedure. The opposition counters that proceeding with amendments in the absence of consensus undermines the spirit of negotiation itself.

At present, neither side appears prepared to concede its core positions. The government maintains momentum on constitutional amendments, while the opposition views that very process as an obstacle to meaningful compromise. With time narrowing before the expiration of the federal mandate, the outcome of these talks will likely shape not only the immediate electoral roadmap but also the longer-term balance between Somalia’s federal center and its member states.

Though the negotiations remain ongoing, several plausible scenarios are beginning to take shape. The first is a negotiated settlement on the electoral model. Under this outcome, both sides could agree to retain an indirect system but expand it beyond the structure used in previous cycles. Such an arrangement might increase the number of delegates, broaden participation across clans and constituencies, and introduce additional oversight mechanisms intended to enhance transparency. While it would fall short of universal suffrage, it could be presented as a transitional compromise, balancing the government’s stated reform ambitions with opposition concerns about feasibility and timing.

A second potential outcome centers on the constitutional amendments. A breakthrough here would likely require calibrated concessions from the federal government, possibly including a pause in the implementation of contested changes and a commitment to subject key provisions to broader national consultation. In return, opposition leaders could acknowledge the legitimacy of a structured review process, provided it is anchored in consensus and clear procedural safeguards. Such reciprocal steps could ease tensions that have stalled dialogue for months and create space for agreement on the electoral roadmap.

If neither of these paths materializes, however, the risk of a constitutional and political crisis grows astronomically. The mandates of both the federal parliament and the executive are approaching their expiration. Failure to secure a consensus-based electoral framework before that deadline could leave the country without an agreed mechanism for political transition. In such a scenario, disputes over legality and legitimacy would likely intensify divisions between Mogadishu and federal member states. The coming weeks, therefore, are likely to be decisive, not only for determining the format of the next elections, but for defining whether Somalia’s political actors can resolve foundational disputes through negotiation rather than confrontation.