To understand the continuing dispute between Puntland and the Federal Government of Somalia, it is necessary…
To understand the continuing dispute between Puntland and the Federal Government of Somalia, it is necessary to look beyond current political disagreements. The conflict is rooted in Somalia’s history, the purpose for which Puntland was established, and the country’s still-unresolved federal arrangement.
The Historical Roots of the Dispute
After independence in 1960, Somalia adopted a highly centralized system of government led by a president and prime minister. Regional governors were appointed by and accountable to the central government in Mogadishu. When the military seized power in 1969, it maintained and further strengthened the same centralized model.
Under both civilian and military governments, the northeastern regions that now form Puntland remained underdeveloped and received limited public services. Major government institutions were concentrated in Mogadishu. Residents often had to travel to the capital to obtain business licences, citizenship documents and other essential services.
These difficulties became even more serious after the collapse of the Somali state in 1991. As violence spread, many people returned to their home regions in search of safety. However, they found no functioning institutions and no formal government services. Local communities were therefore compelled to rebuild governance, security and basic administration from the ground up.
This locally driven process eventually led to the establishment of Puntland in 1998. Puntland was not founded with the intention of separating from Somalia. Its founding principle was to contribute to the rebuilding of a united Somali state based on federalism, a system that would prevent the excessive concentration of political and administrative power in Mogadishu.
What Is the Dispute About?
At the heart of the current disagreement is a fundamental question: What does federalism mean in practice?
Article 54 of Somalia’s 2012 Provisional Constitution states that powers and resources should be negotiated and agreed upon between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States. It identifies four areas as federal responsibilities: foreign affairs, national defense, citizenship and immigration, and monetary policy.
Puntland argues that the Federal Government has increasingly extended its authority into matters that should either be managed by the Federal Member States or agreed upon through consultation. These include fisheries licensing, policing, education, healthcare, development projects and the management of externally funded programmes.
For example, Puntland questions why permission for fishing activities along its coastline should be issued solely from Mogadishu. It raises similar concerns when the Federal Government attempts to influence the appointment of local police commanders, administer health programmes directly, tries to control education certification or award contracts for projects implemented within Puntland regions.
Supporters of federal government argue that Somalia needs national standards, coordinated institutions and consistent public services which looks like centralized power. Puntland’s position is that national coordination should not become central control. In a genuine federation, cooperation should be based on consultation, clearly defined responsibilities and respect for the constitutional authority of each level of government.
Lessons from Other Federal Member States
Puntland often points to the Federal Government’s relationship with South West State, Galmudug and Hirshabelle as evidence of growing centralization. In these states, the federal authorities have exercised considerable influence over elections, security institutions, education systems and health programmes.
Puntland fears that this approach could gradually weaken the autonomy of Federal Member States and return Somalia to the centralized model that existed before 1991. Its concern is not necessarily about cooperation with Mogadishu, but about federal institutions making unilateral decisions on matters that directly affect the states.
Puntland does not operate its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defence. It does not issue a separate national currency or passport. These responsibilities are accepted as belonging to the Federal Government. What Puntland seeks is meaningful authority over its internal administration, local security, education, healthcare, natural-resource management and development priorities, subject to agreements made within the constitutional framework.
Development Assistance and Political Pressure
Another major source of disagreement concerns development projects and international assistance. Puntland has repeatedly accused the Federal Government of attempting to control projects intended for implementation within the state. According to Puntland’s position, some projects have been delayed or blocked because federal institutions wanted to manage the funding, procurement and implementation directly from Mogadishu.
This creates a serious concern: international recognition and access to external financing should not be used by the Federal Government as political leverage against a Federal Member State. Development assistance belongs to the Somali people and should be delivered transparently, fairly and according to clearly agreed responsibilities.
More Than a Political or Personal Conflict
The disagreement between Puntland and the Federal Government should not be reduced to a conflict between individual leaders, clans or competing political interests. Although personalities and short-term political calculations may intensify the tension, the central issue is constitutional.
Puntland argues that Somalia must decide whether it is genuinely committed to federalism or whether federalism will exist only in name while most political, financial and administrative authority remains concentrated in Mogadishu.
If Somalia has chosen a federal system, the powers of each level of government must be clearly defined, negotiated and respected. The Federal Government should not interfere in state elections, local administration or service delivery without a clear constitutional and legal mandate. At the same time, Federal Member States must fulfil their national obligations and cooperate with federal institutions on issues that affect the country as a whole.
The solution requires serious constitutional dialogue, not political pressure. Somalia needs an agreed division of powers, transparent arrangements for sharing resources, an effective mechanism for resolving disputes and regular consultation between the Federal Government and Federal Member States.
Ultimately, the Puntland–Federal Government dispute is about the future structure of the Somali state. It is a debate over whether Somalia will build a cooperative federation founded on trust and shared responsibilities, or gradually return to a system in which nearly every decision is made in Mogadishu.
Resolving this question fairly is essential not only for Puntland, but also for Somalia’s long-term unity, stability and state-building process.
Mahad J. Koronto
Freelancer analysist
