| Front Page |
International Crisis Group Report On Somaliland Democratization And Its Discontents, Part X
[Continued from the previous issue]
F. THE SUPREME COURT
The responsibility for passing final judgement on the election fell to the highest organ of Somaliland’s judiciary: the Supreme Court. Both Kulmiye and UDUB presented their grievances in writing to the court, which then sought clarification from the NEC.
On the basis of this information, the court then conducted open hearings with representatives of political parties and the NEC lawyers.
In arriving at a judgement, the court essentially faced two options: either to uphold the figures announced by the NEC on 19 April, or to order a recount. A third option, to assess whether specific ballot boxes had been justly or unjustly disqualified, would have been fairer to Somaliland’s voters by ensuring that no vote was unnecessarily wasted, but it also threatened to open a Pandora’s box of claims and counterclaims, probably requiring a delay of weeks, if not months, before a final decision could be reached. The court, however, identified an unexpected fourth option: to present, without elucidation, a different set of figures: UDUB had won the election not by 80 votes, but by 217. Since the court offered no explanation for the change, its 11 May verdict raised more questions than it answered and opened the court to accusations of political bias.
Indeed, Somaliland’s judiciary has spent most of the past decade mired in incompetence, corruption and political interference. A recent report by a local research organisation found the judiciary to be “the most neglected and under-funded of the three orders of government”, and described its application of the law as “ad hoc, non-uniform, and highly subjective”.
In mid-2002, soon after taking office as Somaliland’s interim president, Rayale declared judicial reform as one of his top priorities, and ordered a bold shake-up of the justice system. This initiative was unpopular with sitting judges, but was warmly welcomed by a public exasperated by the judiciary’s deterioration to the state of “an open market where ‘Justice’ is sold to the highest bidder”.
As part of the reform effort, Rayale appointed a new Chief Justice, Sa’id Farah Ahmed and established an Advisory Committee on the Judiciary, which six serving judges described as unconstitutional and subsequently resigned.
Rayale then dismissed the four remaining members to the Supreme Court and named six new judges to the bench. Therefore in April 2003, when the Supreme Court was called upon to hand down judgement on the NEC’s decision, there were seven justices on the bench, all of them appointed by Rayale. Not surprisingly, many Somalilanders concluded (to paraphrase the American columnist Thomas Friedman’s assessment of the 2000 American presidential election) that the justices voted twice for president – once in April and once in May.
As with the electoral commission, no evidence has been brought forward to suggest that the Supreme Court acted improperly in any way. But the appearance of partisanship, reinforced by the court’s reluctance to explain its decision, has probably done more harm than good to the already battered reputation of Somaliland’s justice system.
To be continued.
Home | Contact us | Links | Archives