No comments!

Recommended Posts


Hello Folks,

It's really interesting in a revealing sort of a way the manner in which the "narrator" of this news-clip keeps-on referring the delegations of MPs from Somaliland on one hand, and those MPs from Somalia on the other hand. And how they are sitting there together in that old parliament to form the first Somali union republic. Not some silly talk of MPs from Puntland or from Gal-Mudug or some such malarkey distribution of MPs in a "4.5 formula", sitting together to form the first government of the Somali union Republic.

And more to the point, these newly "empowered" MPs of the first union republic's government, seemed doing their first duty, which was in first electing the president for the Republic. And as you can hear the narrator speaking the union MPs are been also told that they would have to come back another day to the parliament in-order to elect the "speaker of parliament".

And incidentally, the eventual speaker of the first parliament actually turned out to be a man call Ina-Diirqadhaadh, who was MP from Somaliland and from the SNL party (to be precise). He was also Ciidagale fellow from Hargeisa. 

Moreover, all of these "narrative evidence", actually refute the silly essence of those who argue that there was only a two region(s) that had united it. Instead of two respective governments with their elected MPs in tow, who did united in the first union Republic of the Somali State.

Hence, legally and constitutionally speaking, the current Somaliland's case of independence and why she should be viewed as a "political partner" (with an active human's agency of her own right), who also were involved in an arrangement with another party (namely Somalia) back in 1960, but who now desiring to proceed to "terminate" that failed legal union, is actually made more powerfully correct in its essence of it by this sort of "evidential-based reality".

Which is the reason every government in Villa Somalia refused to allowed the talks between Somalia and Somaliland to be made internationally mediated talks. And instead wishes to keep the talks as a "inter-Somali affairs", which in turn should be facilitated by a friendly nations (or at least a friendly nation to them) like the Republic of Turkey of this world.

Furthermore, if you ever wonder to know why the political elites of Somalia want (and really wants) to keep the talks as some sort of a "inter-Somali affair" it's because in any internationally mediated fora of the kind Somaliland is insisting on, in which international mediators are the "legal referees" (not just facilitators) the first thing these mediators will ask of each party will be to present their legal argument.

And in that legal argument, it just so happens, that Somaliland is confident of our case, with evidence, with legal precedence, with case laws to back it up. For all of these will show what we were prior to 1960 as well as what we were at the eve of the union. How the union was consummated. What laws of constitutionality (or lack of it) such union was based on. What took place along the way. Especially and crucially in 1969. What was the legal repercussion that was obtained from the "nullification of the old Somali's constitution" in which dictator Barre did it. And what, finally, is the status of the alleged union now, in-terms of Somalia and Somaliland, in the light of those litanies of reality.

In here, again, it just so happens, our friends (or at least our former compatriots) from Somalia have no prayer in hell in mounting any sustained legal case of why the old Somali union is still valid to this day. 

This is the reason they keep on talking about the talks between Somalia and Somaliland should done in a "friendly nations". And they say that there should be "facilitators-led arrangement" only. And not a "mediators-led-legal discussion" done on a platform of an international fora. And it's also the reason they want to keep on delaying such talks till they have a better chance to amount to much in-terms of anything in military terms. Given that now know that they can't come at us in Somaliland in any military's strength-wise. Particularly if they want to send forces into Somaliland in-order to forcefully returned her the old dead Somali union.

All in all, remember that old poem by Farah Nur in which he set it forth in early 19th century, which was about how some folks are known to forever try to win by "deception" what they can't win it in a "honest tussle" and in the open plain of destiny. Well, it's this sort of situation in which he was having in mind.

And this was also why or the reason President Bihi had "quoted" him (meaningfully) in his penultimate line in that speech he gave as a joint address of both houses of parliament. And the reason being is that what that poem was in turn describing, namely folks who are trying win by deception, is essentially and exactly the method, the agenda, and the larger political objective of the political elites of Somalia in-terms of how they want to approach the issue of Somaliland vis-à-vis Somalia.

And that means, they are trying to win by "deception" when they could never win it in the field of open affair. Be it open engagement of the military's battlefield. Or be it open engagement of legally mediated international forum. Particularly of the kind that Somaliland will always insist on that such talks should be held on it. 

However the sad part for them is that we in Somaliland are too freaking clued up to their silly political and legalistic games they are always trying to pull at our expense. Hence, now they are trying to use this "gullible fellow" by the name of Mr Ahmed Abby to give them more time to do their usual delaying tactics. And therefore help them to avoid to talk to us in an international setting of the kind they know they have no hope in hell in winning through it with whatever flimsy legal case they have in their hands on it now. 

This is the game of Villa Somalia at the moment.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flag raising is facade of a union. A legal constitution of the union, which in turn was approved by parties to the union, actually makes all the difference and the central definition of any alleged Statehood of union Republic between two parties. Which in turn could argue to exist between the parties in the first place.

Hence in the absence of that, then all you have is nothing of a legal kind or even of any constitutionally substantive sort of argument.

That is the bottom-line, really.

But I do doubt, though, whether the trolling kids in here of SOL are that much clued up about what, if anything, the raising of the blue flag in Hargeisa in 26th of June of 1960 could mean from that day onward, legally.

And what sort of constitutional argument can be proven from it in so far as the today's Somaliland's case of her independence may amount to, at least in the light of that singular episode of raising the blue flag is concern.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.