Advocate Yabarow Slams $10,000 EALA Candidacy Fee as “Legalised Exclusion”
“This is not democracy. It’s a business,” said Yabarow.
“We are turning leadership into something only the wealthy can access. That is unacceptable in a country where more than 70% of the population lives below the poverty line.”
Yabarow accused Members of Parliament and Senators of imposing financial barriers after being elected through indirect, clan-based processes, often involving heavy payments to delegates. He labelled the move a deliberate attempt to entrench their influence while blocking reforms such as one-person-one-vote elections.
1. Q: Advocate Yabarow, is this $10,000 candidacy fee constitutional or legal under Somali law?
Not at all. Somalia’s Provisional Constitution guarantees equal political participation for all citizens. Any law or policy that discriminates based on wealth, as this fee does, violates that right. It is exclusionary and fundamentally anti-democratic.
1. Q: Advocate Yabarow, is this $10,000 candidacy fee constitutional or legal under Somali law?
Not at all. Somalia’s Provisional Constitution guarantees equal political participation for all citizens. Any law or policy that discriminates based on wealth, as this fee does, violates that right. It is exclusionary and fundamentally anti-democratic.
2. Q: Parliament argues the fee filters out unserious candidates. Does that argument hold water?
That’s a poor excuse. Serious candidates should be vetted based on competence, track record, and integrity—not their bank account. This policy effectively blocks ordinary Somalis, especially youth and diaspora members, from contesting. In a country with widespread poverty, this is cruelty disguised as policy.
3. Q: Who can realistically afford this fee?
Only the wealthy elite or those backed by business interests and clan money. And once elected, such candidates will likely recoup their investment through corrupt practices. We’re planting corruption at the very entry point of regional leadership.
4. Q: Were the MPs and Senators who imposed this fee themselves elected directly by the people?
No. The majority were selected through indirect, clan-based electoral systems, often by paying large sums to win votes from hand-picked delegates. They are now replicating that corrupt system, this time by monetising access. Meanwhile, they continue to resist one-person-one-vote reforms. This is pure hypocrisy.
5. Q: What about the reduced fee for women—$5,000?
It’s purely symbolic. Most Somali women still cannot access even $5,000. This is exclusion with a softer face, but exclusion nonetheless.
6. Q: Do you see this as part of a broader political trend?
Absolutely. There’s a coordinated effort by entrenched elites to block reform and preserve control. And, as always, it is the poor, the youth, and the marginalised who are made to pay the price, figuratively and literally.
7. Q: Can this policy be legally challenged?
It should be challenged, both legally and politically. If we allow this to become precedent, we risk normalising exclusionary governance. The Somali people must organise, raise their voices, and demand reversal.
8 Q: Any final message to the Somali public and political class?
To Parliament: reverse this shameful, anti-democratic policy.
To Parliament: reverse this shameful, anti-democratic policy.
To the people: mobilise and speak out—democracy is not for sale.
“This is legalised exclusion,” Yabarow concluded.
“It’s time to tear down the gate, not raise the price to get through it.”
