Opinion: Somalia’s Health Ministry Crisis Shows Why the Rule of Law Matters

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case between Somalia’s Ministry of Health and the National Health Professional Council (NHPC) is more than a legal judgment—it is a defining moment for the country’s governance trajectory. At its core, the decision reveals a deeper institutional struggle: one that pits unilateral ministerial power against the constitutional promise of accountability, transparency, and professional autonomy.

The confrontation began on May 29, 2025, when the Federal Ministry of Health unexpectedly appointed 15 new members to the NHPC, naming Mohamed Addow as General Secretary, without meaningful consultation with stakeholders. The former NHPC responded boldly, filing a lawsuit asserting its operational independence and challenging the legality of the ministry’s decision. On November 27, the Supreme Court ruled decisively in favor of the council, nullifying the appointments and imposing a symbolic fine on the ministry. Yet in an extraordinary act of defiance, the ministry appointed another 15 members only days later—reigniting a conflict that now raises serious questions about the limits of executive authority.

At the heart of the dispute lies a misunderstanding—or willful distortion—of the NHPC’s mandate. The council’s role and responsibilities are clearly defined in its founding policies, and revenues generated from licensing and registration are legally earmarked for the Ministry of Finance. The power struggle is therefore not only unnecessary but also legally baseless. It reflects a broader governance challenge in which ministries often extend their reach into domains already regulated by law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling arrives at a time when Somalia’s judiciary faces public skepticism over allegations of corruption and bias. Yet this judgment, issued in direct opposition to the interests of a powerful minister, represents a rare assertion of judicial independence. It sends an important signal: no institution, however influential, stands above the law.

More broadly, the ruling cultivates a renewed sense of public empowerment. By demonstrating that citizens and institutions can successfully challenge unlawful government actions, it encourages greater civic engagement and reinforces the principle that justice is accessible. For a society long fatigued by impunity and executive overreach, this moment is significant.

But the implications extend beyond the courtroom. The decision places the credibility of the current Health Minister under intense scrutiny. Already, the ministry faces criticism over allegations ranging from financial mismanagement to involvement in human trafficking networks. The horrifying incident at Banadir Hospital—in which a woman was forced to give birth outside the facility—has further damaged public trust and prompted parliamentary inquiry. When combined with the ministry’s insistence on circumventing legal procedures in the NHPC case, the cumulative impact is a crisis of confidence that cannot be ignored.