Addis Abeba — By any objective legal, historical, or political measure, Somaliland’s quest for international recognition is one of the most compelling unresolved cases on the African continent. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the recent press release issued by the African Union Commission on 26 December 2025, in which Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf categorically rejected the possibility of recognizing Somaliland, chose political expediency over historical accuracy and legal consistency.
The press release states, “The Chairperson of the Commission firmly rejects any initiative or action aimed at recognizing Somaliland as an independent entity, recalling that Somaliland remains an integral part of the Federal Republic of Somalia.” It goes on to say, “Any attempt to undermine the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Somalia runs counter to the fundamental principles of the African Union and risks setting a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications for peace and stability across the continent.”
For Somalilanders, this statement is not merely discouraging–it is profoundly troubling. It ignores well-established facts, contradicts the African Union’s own institutional findings, and raises legitimate concerns about whether the Chairperson is speaking as a neutral custodian of continental principles or as a political representative shaped by the interests of his home country, Djibouti.
Somaliland’s case for statehood
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Somaliland’s claim to statehood is not rooted in secession, rebellion, or opportunism. It is grounded in documented sovereignty. On 26 June 1960, Somaliland gained independence from the United Kingdom and became a fully sovereign state. During this brief but critical period, Somaliland was recognized by over 30 countries, including some permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These facts are indisputable and recorded in international diplomatic archives.
Days later, Somaliland voluntarily entered into a union with the former Italian Somalia. This union was driven not by coercion but by idealism–the pan-Somali vision of a Greater Somalia, which sought to unite all Somali-inhabited territories, including Djibouti, the Somali Region of Ethiopia, and Kenya’s Northern Frontier District. Importantly, this union was never properly legalized through a ratified and binding act of union. From its inception, it was legally defective and politically imbalanced.
History has since rendered that dream obsolete. Djibouti itself, once part of the same pan-Somali aspiration, chose independence in 1977, exercising its sovereign right to self-determination. Somaliland, by contrast, endured decades of marginalization, systematic violence, and collective punishment under successive Somali regimes, culminating in the collapse of the Somali state in 1991.
When Somaliland reasserted its independence in that year, it did not break away from a functioning state. It restored the sovereignty it had briefly enjoyed in 1960, returning to internationally recognized colonial borders–a principle that lies at the very heart of African statehood.
AU disregarding its own verdict
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the African Union Chairperson’s statement is its dismissal of the AU’s own institutional history. In 2005, the AU deployed a high-level fact-finding mission to Somaliland, led by the late Ambassador Patrick Mazimhaka. The mission conducted extensive consultations and assessments across Somaliland and produced a report that remains one of the most candid AU documents ever written on the subject.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the African Union Chairperson’s statement is its dismissal of the AU’s own institutional history.”
The report concluded that Somaliland’s case was “unique and self-justified” and explicitly stated that recognition would not set a dangerous precedent for other secessionist movements in Africa. It praised Somaliland’s bottom-up reconciliation process, its democratic governance, and its relative peace and stability in a turbulent region. Most strikingly, the mission argued that the case for recognition was overdue.
To now dismiss Somaliland’s eligibility for recognition without addressing–or even acknowledging–this report is not only intellectually dishonest but also institutionally inconsistent. It invites a troubling question: when the AU’s own findings become inconvenient, are they simply ignored?
Somaliland’s position aligns squarely with Article 4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act, which enshrines respect for borders existing at the time of independence. Somaliland’s borders are those of the former British Somaliland Protectorate–clearly defined, internationally recognized, and uncontested.
Furthermore, international law does not prohibit the restoration of sovereignty where a voluntary union has collapsed and failed to protect the rights, security, and dignity of a people. Somaliland satisfies all the classical criteria of statehood under the Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in international relations.
Over the past three decades, Somaliland has demonstrated what many recognized states struggle to achieve. It has held multiple competitive elections, ensured peaceful transfers of power, maintained internal security, and built functioning institutions without sustained international recognition or direct foreign military intervention. These are not theoretical achievements–they are lived realities.
Selective memory of Greater Somalia
The continued invocation of Somali unity as a justification for denying Somaliland recognition is increasingly untenable. The Greater Somalia project has long since disintegrated. Djibouti’s independence stands as clear evidence that participation in that vision was never compulsory. To insist that Somaliland remain bound to a failed and defunct union–one that even its former proponents abandoned–is both unjust and ahistorical.
More troubling is the appearance of selective morality, where some expressions of self-determination are celebrated while others are delegitimized, depending on regional politics rather than legal merit.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Contrary to persistent fears, recognizing Somaliland would not destabilize the Horn of Africa. On the contrary, it would reward stability, encourage responsible governance, and reinforce the principle that peace and democracy matter. Continuing to marginalize Somaliland sends the opposite message–that failure and dysfunction carry no cost, while success and restraint go unrewarded.
In conclusion, this is not a call for the African Union to act recklessly or hastily. It is a call for consistency, integrity, and courage. The AU must revisit its own findings, engage Somaliland directly, and treat the issue as a legal and political question, not an emotional or ideological one.
Somaliland’s pursuit of recognition is not about dividing Africa. It is about affirming justice, historical truth, and the right of peoples to govern themselves responsibly. To deny Somaliland indefinitely is to undermine the very principles the African Union claims to uphold.
History will judge whether Africa stood by its own rules–or allowed political convenience to eclipse truth. Somaliland has waited patiently for over three decades. Its case remains intact, its record speaks for itself, and its people deserve nothing less than an honest hearing. AS
Editor’s Note: Abdi Halim M. Musa is a former Deputy Minister of Commerce of Somaliland and a political and economic analyst. He currently serves as secretary general of the Somaliland Intellectual Forum and as an executive member of the GSG Think-Tank. He can be reached at halimusa4@gmail.com