Dr Abib’s Flawed Interpretation of International Law
Dr Abdillahi Hashi Abib has once again taken to Twitter to claim that the Somali government’s actions constitute crimes against humanity under Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute. This assertion is both legally flawed and reflects a personal grievance with the Somali government, undermining the credibility of his arguments
Somalia’s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and Jurisdictional Constraints
Dr Abib calls on the ICC to intervene in Somalia, ignoring that Somalia is not a party to the Rome Statute. Somalia’s non-ratification means the ICC lacks automatic jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory.
Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only act with non-state parties under specific conditions, such as a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referral or when a state voluntarily accepts the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 12(3). Neither of these conditions applies to Somalia.
By omitting this critical legal barrier, Dr Abib’s appeal is inherently flawed.
Misuse of Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute
Dr Abib claims that “the forced displacement and demolition of homes affecting Somali families by government authorities constitute forcible transfer of population—acts that align with definitions of crimes against humanity.” However, his interpretation of Article 7(1)(d) is inaccurate and misleading.
Under Article 7(1)(d), forcible population transfer qualifies as a crime against humanity only if it is part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack. This requires:
1. Intentional targeting of civilians.
3. Evidence of a systematic or widespread practice.
The Somali government’s actions, including evictions and demolitions, fail to meet these criteria. These measures are better understood as responses to land disputes and urban development needs rooted in the aftermath of Somalia’s civil war.
During the conflict, many individuals and groups illegally occupied government-owned land, particularly in urban areas, without proper documentation or legal title. The government’s efforts to reclaim these lands are not systematic attacks but lawful actions aimed at restoring public property, resolving disputes, and ensuring equitable resource use.
Framing these actions as crimes against humanity not only lacks legal merit but also dangerously distorts the reality of Somalia’s governance challenges. Without clear evidence of a deliberate state policy to displace populations as part of a systematic attack, Dr Abib’s accusations are unfounded and inflammatory.
Dr Abib’s repeated accusations against the Somali government stem from personal grievances rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. His pattern of publishing misleading claims portrays the government as an agent of crimes against humanity, raising questions about his motivations.
Instead of using his platform to engage in constructive parliamentary debate or propose meaningful reforms, Dr Abib escalates disputes on international platforms. This approach misleads the public, undermines trust in domestic governance, and hinders productive dialogue.
If Dr. Abib truly wishes to address forced evictions and governance challenges, he should focus on the tools provided by Somalia’s Constitution. Members of Parliament can propose laws, create commissions of inquiry, and collaborate with civil society to address pressing issues. Unfortunately, Dr Abib has consistently chosen rhetoric over action, further polarising public opinion.
Domestic Issues Do Not Automatically Constitute International Crimes
Forced displacement and home demolitions in Somalia are serious domestic issues tied to decades of weak governance, unresolved land ownership conflicts, and rapid urbanisation. These challenges demand domestic solutions tailored to Somalia’s unique context.
International law, including the Rome Statute, is not a tool for addressing governance shortcomings unless there is clear evidence of crimes meeting the threshold of widespread or systematic attacks. Dr Abib has provided no such evidence, making his appeal legally invalid and misleading.
Conclusion: Prioritizing Domestic Solutions Over Misleading Appeals
While Dr Abib’s concern for Somali civilians is commendable, his approach is counterproductive. Appeals to the ICC based on flawed legal interpretations misinform the public, undermine Somalia’s sovereignty, and distract from domestic efforts to rebuild institutions.
Somalia’s parliamentarians, including Dr Abib, are responsible for addressing human rights concerns through legislative action and policy reforms. Strengthening domestic systems, fostering constructive dialogue, and promoting equitable governance are the most effective ways to achieve justice and accountability.
The ICC is not a solution for every grievance. Its involvement is reserved for the gravest crimes meeting strict jurisdictional and evidentiary thresholds—standards Dr Abib’s appeal fails to meet. For Somalia to progress, its leaders must prioritize addressing the root causes of displacement, land disputes, and governance challenges, ensuring that justice begins at home.
