Using Force Against Sheikh Sharif a Bad Idea
The Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) has since 10 October been deploying National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) forces, specifically the little-known Public Protection Forces (Ilaalada Shacabka / People’s Protection Forces), in Wadajir. This mobilisation is concentrated close to the home of ex-President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed – a development widely criticised by many Somalis as provocative. Some interpret the build-up as a prelude, possibly, to some form of armed action against the former president and leader of the opposition Somali Future Council, amid uncorroborated media reports that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) has used Abgaal clan elders to relay an ultimatum demanding the disarmament of Sharif and other opposition figures.
On 11 October, NISA publicly accused armed groups linked to Sharif of attacking and obstructing its Public Protection Forces in the Wadajir district. The agency alleged that these groups attempted to provoke a confrontation by entering homes while carrying AK-47s, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), drawing parallels to similar security incidents in June. NISA maintained that its own forces showed restraint during the encounter.
Sharif’s office categorically denied the claims, describing them as fabricated and misleading. The opposition leader dismissed NISA’s claims and said that his staff were abducted, vital food and water supplies blocked, and government forces positioned around his residence. In response, he called for an independent investigation, urged dialogue over force, and warned against exploitation of minor security incidents for political pressure amid the ongoing electoral crisis.
The security deployments have drawn broader condemnation across the social and political spectrum, with former Prime Minister Khaire and the Somali Future Council echoing Sharif's view that the mobilisation constitutes a dangerous provocation. Sheikh Mohamud Abdul Bari, a prominent moderate cleric who serves as the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Somali Ulema, this week voiced similar sentiments and publicly warned the government against targeting the former Somali president, describing the veteran politician as a revered national figure widely credited with contributing to the country’s democratic evolution and state-building.
Bellicose rhetoric
President Hassan Sheikh has been steadily escalating pressure on Sheikh Sharif throughout much of this year. In June, federal forces launched an armed assault targeting the residences of Sharif and ex-Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire. The attack triggered two days of intense clashes across the Abdiasis, Shibis, and Kaaraan districts, bringing Mogadishu to a complete standstill, forcing thousands of civilians to flee, and reviving deep fears of a broader conflict before intense domestic and international pressure compelled a hasty federal retreat.
The president has since formalised this hostile intent, most explicitly during a recent public address in Adaado, Galmudug. In the speech, HSM laid down an unyielding stance on disarming his political adversaries, asserting that the government would enter private homes to seize unauthorised weapons.
"Only the government has the authority to possess firearms and ammunition. No one else is permitted to carry them," he declared, admonishing opposition politicians for remaining habituated to maintaining personal security details.
By insisting that Mogadishu is safe and that the state holds an absolute monopoly on violence, the president continues to lay the rhetorical and tactical groundwork to aggressively move against his key political rivals.
Defence Minister Ahmed Moallim Fiqi, a vocal regime hawk, on Monday this week triggered a fresh political firestorm by declaring that the federal government had multiple opportunities to eliminate former President Sheikh Sharif, accusing the veteran politician and other opposition figures of exhibiting "militia-like behaviour" and, more controversially, adding that they would “have their heads smashed”.
Such highly bellicose and inflammatory rhetoric severely exacerbates Somalia's already volatile political landscape, deepening factional rifts between the ruling administration and prominent opposition leaders. By reducing legitimate political dissent to armed insurgency, these remarks cross a dangerous line, serving as a thinly veiled pretext for state-sanctioned violence that could ultimately trigger retaliatory clan mobilisation and destabilise Mogadishu.
Sharif on disarmament
In response, Sharif has consistently rejected the federal government’s disarmament campaign, framing it as a selective, politically motivated project rather than a genuine security measure. He argues that the policy unfairly targets opposition figures while state-imported weapons remain under the control of private individuals or are stockpiled outside national command.
Sharif also questions the legitimacy of an administration enforcing disarmament after its own constitutional mandate expired.
For disarmament to be credible, Sharif contends it must be comprehensive and grounded in broad political consensus rather than enforced unilaterally in the capital.
He maintains that until genuine peace is achieved, personal arms remain necessary for self-defence, highlighting the hypocrisy of senior government leaders travelling with heavy state protection while demanding others disarm.
Sharif’s arguments carry substantial weight. In Somalia’s deeply fractured security landscape, enforcing a selective, top-down disarmament scheme without a comprehensive political consensus naturally invites suspicion.
Weapon stockpiles outside official command remain a pervasive reality, and stripping opposition figures of security while state officials retain heavy protection leaves rivals dangerously vulnerable.
Furthermore, attempting to execute such a sensitive exercise under an administration facing severe constitutional legitimacy crises only deepens the perception that the state is weaponising security organs to neutralise political dissent rather than pacify the capital.
Conditions for disarmament
The preconditions for a credible nationwide disarmament campaign are entirely absent in Somalia. Genuine disarmament requires a fully functional and representative government, an impartial judiciary, and a universally accepted security structure that guarantees the safety of all citizens.
Currently, the FGS does not possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, nor does it control vast swathes of the country. Forcing disarmament in the capital while the rest of the nation remains heavily weaponised – and while the state cannot guarantee public safety outside a few secured zones – renders the policy a premature and logistically impossible exercise.
Furthermore, the ongoing offensive against Al-Shabaab and persistent inter-clan conflicts mean that firearms remain the primary mechanism of survival for communities and political factions alike.
Somalia’s national security institutions are not yet robust or neutral enough to fill the security vacuum that widespread disarmament would create. Until the federal and regional governments degrade the insurgent threat and establish a dependable, non-partisan security umbrella across all federal member states, asking any group to voluntarily surrender its means of self-defence is entirely disconnected from the realities on the ground.
Most critically, the current disarmament initiative suffers from a fatal deficit of trust. Rather than emerging from a collaborative national strategy, the new disarmament drive is widely perceived as a partisan weapon deployed by Villa Somalia to strip political rivals of their security.
In a fragile political environment, disarmament cannot be divorced from the broader constitutional crisis. Because the federal administration is attempting to enforce this sweeping mandate after the expiration of its own legal timeline, its moral and legal authority to disarm its citizens is heavily contested, rendering the entire effort a source of further polarisation rather than pacification.
Risk of armed insurrection
A rushed, heavy-handed disarmament campaign in Mogadishu risks acting as the immediate catalyst for armed insurrection. The capital's security landscape is not an isolated urban zone; it is a highly sensitive ecosystem where political factions, private security details, and clan dynamics are deeply intertwined. Forcing opposition leaders like Sheikh Sharif to disarm under the threat of state military action leaves them acutely vulnerable to both state overreach and targeted insurgent attacks. In an environment where survival depends on personal security, an aggressive push to seize weapons will inevitably be met with armed resistance.
Unless the FGS, under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, ceases using state security forces and intelligence units like NISA to coercively disarm and pressure political opponents, the capital faces a critical risk of fresh unrest.
Achieving national stability and a transparent, consensual path towards final elections depends entirely on the incumbent administration abandoning coercive tactics. Ultimately, the country's political future hinges on whether the government chooses to return to inclusive dialogue with its rivals or continues down a path of escalation.
