The recent incidents in Mogadishu surrounding the enforcement of public land evictions have raised urgent questions about the rules of engagement for Federal Government security forces. Instead of exercising restraint, professionalism, and adherence to the law, we have witnessed scenes of security personnel beating protesters, firing live bullets at civilians, and even targeting high-profile opposition leaders. The shooting of a former president, prime ministers, and the killing of their security details is not only unlawful, it represents a profound departure from the very principles of public service and protection.
Even more alarming was the reckless use of heavy weapons in an urban setting, including reports of RPGs fired during the 24 September 2025 incident to assassinate members of the security detail of a former prime minister. Such actions highlight a deep misunderstanding within the security sector about the purpose and limits of engagement whether in combat, crowd control, or dealing with opposition officials exercising their constitutional right to protest.
Do those in command understand the consequences of these actions? The killing of a political leader, be it a former president, a prime minister, or an opposition figure would not simply be an isolated tragedy. It could plunge Somalia into irreversible chaos, reigniting civil war and destabilizing an already fragile country and its institutions.
The role of security forces must be unambiguous: to safeguard the public, protect peaceful demonstrations, and maintain law and order with restraint. Denying citizens their right to protest peacefully only invites anger, escalation, and violence. If unchecked, such an approach risks dragging the nation into conflict, undermining both state legitimacy and public trust.
The Federal Government urgently needs to rethink the rules of engagement. Security forces must be retrained and held accountable, not as tools of political repression, but as guardians of the people and the constitution. Without this shift, every protest risks becoming a flashpoint and a potential trigger for national instability.