By Shukri Mohammed
I have read the articles by Abdi Sheik and Mohamed Olad, and before even turning to their content, one preliminary issue deserves attention. The intent and the names of Olad’s article were to fan an already perceived low-intensity conflict between two clan groups in the Hiiran Zone of Somalia.
As the original critique was published on a platform administered by an individual associated with one side of the conflict, Olad’s article cleverly looked for a match and found a competing venue. And this, in a sense, expands the discussion from the DDS to the Hiran region of Somalia.
The historical sensitivities and perceived rivalries between these communities are well documented, and therefore, this decision cannot be dismissed as neutral or incidental. It sends a signal – whether intended or not – that political communication is being filtered and projected through a clan lens.
Such an approach is deeply troubling. It reflects a willingness to instrumentalize longstanding social divisions for short-term political messaging, rather than rising above them in the interest of unity and institutional integrity. Deliberately choosing platforms associated with different clans risks reinforcing the very fractures that responsible leadership should be working to heal. It normalizes the idea that political discourse must be segmented along communal lines, which is not only regressive but also corrosive to broader state-building efforts. Leaders are expected to transcend these dynamics, not subtly exploit them. More importantly, this kind of behavior raises ethical concerns about the use of public office.
The presidency carries a responsibility to unify diverse constituencies and to communicate in ways that build trust across communities. When communication choices appear calculated to provoke or signal alignment within inter-clan dynamics, it undermines confidence in the neutrality and inclusiveness of leadership. It suggests that political strategy is being prioritized over social cohesion, which is a dangerous precedent in a context where communal balance remains fragile.
In this light, the episode lends weight to the concerns raised in Mr Abdi Sheikh’s article, which portrays the president as opportunistic and overly adaptive to circumstance. The apparent willingness to engage in messaging that can be interpreted through a clan-based lens reinforces the perception of inconsistency in principle – adjusting tone, platform, and audience in ways that serve immediate political objectives rather than a coherent, unifying vision. Whether intentional or not, the optics of this decision validate the criticism that political expediency is being placed above ethical leadership and long-term societal stability.
Turning to the substance, the contrast between the two articles remains stark. Abdi Sheik’s piece is built on a series of concrete allegations about President Mustafa – specific claims about statements, actions, and past positions that can be interrogated, verified, or refuted. The strength of his article lies in this specificity. It does not rely on vague impressions; it puts forward assertions that demand answers.
By comparison, Mohamed Olad’s response does not meet that level of specificity. Instead of engaging directly with the claims, it reframes the debate as one of motive – arguing that critics are politically driven, inconsistent, or manipulative across languages and audiences. That is not a substantive rebuttal.
Take, for instance, the allegation that a villa was rapidly constructed shortly after Mustafa assumed the role of deputy Bureau Head. This is a straightforward, verifiable claim. A credible response would deny it, explain it, or provide evidence to contextualize it. Mohamed’s article does none of these. The omission is not neutral; it leaves the allegation hanging.
Abdi’s article further argues that President Mustafa’s public statements reveal a recurring pattern of inconsistency, particularly in the way he frames historical and political grievances depending on his audience. According to the article, this pattern was evident in his reported remarks in Jijiga and Bahir Dar, where he appeared to dismiss legitimate Somali grievances with highly charged, dismissive comparisons. Addressing representatives of non-Somali communities in Jijiga, he allegedly stated that “claiming Jijiga belongs to Somalis would amount to nothing short of apartheid in South Africa.” A year later, in Bahir Dar, he is said to have characterized the deeply rooted Somali grievances as mere propaganda. Such remarks, if accurately represented, risk deepening mistrust among communities and reinforcing perceptions that the president’s messaging lacks consistency and sensitivity.
The article contends that this inconsistency became even more pronounced in the president’s later remarks, which appeared to mark a striking reversal in tone and narrative. After dismissing Somali historical grievances in Jijiga and Bahir Dar as divisive or backward-looking, President Mustafa, at a gathering in Nairobi in late 2025, reportedly warned that forces which had dominated Ethiopia’s political order for more than 150 years were not merely relics of history but active actors in the present – operating through entrenched institutions, narratives, and networks to obstruct recent political transformations. The contradiction highlighted by Abdi is difficult to ignore: historical grievances are portrayed as irrelevant or dangerous when raised by Somalis, yet invoked as immediate and legitimate threats when politically expedient in another context.
When pressed to clarify these remarks in a recent interview with Bayfars Media, Mustafa reportedly denied referring to any specific group, insisting that he had not mentioned the “Amhara” by name. These are politically sensitive remarks that could have been clarified with proper context, rebutted with evidence, or corrected if misrepresented. Yet Mohamed Olad’s response bypasses them entirely, choosing instead to focus on peripheral arguments while leaving some of the most substantive allegations unanswered.
On policy inconsistency, Abdi Sheik outlines a pattern: advocacy for abolishing ethnic federalism was later reframed as a personal reflection; support for dismantling the regional special force followed by decisive implementation. These examples are central to the “shapeshifting” argument. A serious defense would reconstruct timelines, explain shifts as pragmatic governance, or distinguish between evolving views and contradictions. Again, no such effort is made.
There are also broader historical and political allegations that go unanswered. These include claims about past roles in mobilizing clan constituencies– referencing episodes such as “tola’eyey Sanqoolow” and attempts to incite the Issa community against the regional Leyu Police. Whether these characterizations are accurate or contested, they are part of the record presented by Abdi Sheik and require engagement. Mohamed’s article skips them.
Abdi Sheik’s article further argues that what he describes as President Mustafa Omer’s transactional cynicism is not confined to major policy reversals but is also reflected in smaller yet symbolically significant episodes. According to the article, when the Somali Regional Alliance for Justice advocated for the restoration of the old regional flag, Mustafa appeared notably unenthusiastic. Abdi links this reaction to Mustafa’s earlier writings, in which he reportedly favored the label “Somali-Ethiopian DDSI,” suggesting a political posture more aligned with an Ethiopian nationalist framing than with the historical and cultural symbolism many Somalis sought to reclaim.
The article contends that the same pattern resurfaced during the auction of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Medemer book. While other regional leaders reportedly directed the proceeds toward schools, clinics, and other public welfare initiatives, Mustafa is said to have chosen to finance a monument to Ethiopian soldiers alleged to have fallen in the so-called Battle of Karamara. The article emphasizes that, for many Somalis, Karamara is remembered not as a site of military heroism, but as the scene of a brutal massacre in which respected elders and some of the region’s brightest young men were killed in cold blood. In Abdi’s framing, this decision was not politically neutral but rather another example of symbolic alignment with an Ethiopian nationalist narrative at the expense of Somali historical memory.
In that context, the decision was not politically neutral. It carried deep symbolic weight and was widely interpreted as a deliberate gesture of political alignment – one that privileged an Ethiopian nationalist narrative over Somali historical memory.
Equally significant is that Mohamed Olad’s response does not attempt to address this allegation. If the decision was misunderstood, symbolic rather than provocative, or motivated by a rationale not publicly known, this was the clearest opportunity to explain it. A substantive defense could have clarified why, unlike his counterparts who directed resources toward social services, Mustafa chose a project tied to one of the most painful and contested memories in Somali collective consciousness. Instead, the silence leaves the allegation standing and reinforces the perception that the gesture was intentional.
In politics, symbolism matters as much as policy. Acts touching on collective memory, trauma, and identity carry consequences beyond their material value. By failing to rebut or contextualize this episode, Mohamed Olad’s article inadvertently strengthens the interpretation that the monument was not an act of reconciliation or development, but a calculated assertion of loyalty to a broader Ethiopian state narrative at the expense of regional historical sensitivities.
There are also broader historical and political allegations left unanswered. These include claims about past roles in mobilizing clan constituencies – referencing episodes such as “tola’eyey Sanqoolow” and alleged attempts to incite the Issa community against the regional Leyu Police. Whether accurate or contested, these claims are part of the record presented by Abdi Sheik and require engagement. Mohamed’s article skips them.
Similarly, questions are raised about institutional roles: whether the president participated in committees that excluded individuals educated in Somalia and Sudan, and whether he authored or published particular newspaper articles earlier in his career. These are factual questions and can be answered clearly. Yet they remain unaddressed. The allegation concerning a 2009 remark about “breaking the backbone of Reer Warfaa” is another example. It is specific, dated, and politically consequential. A response could confirm, deny, or contextualize it. Silence again prevails. The same silence surrounds the reported Nairobi meeting and alleged visit to the Ethiopian embassy – issues that could be clarified with minimal effort if inaccurate or misunderstood.
Perhaps most striking is the failure to address the claim that, in an Amharic-language interview, the president suggested he would rule in favor of non-Somalis in disputes. This is a serious allegation with direct implications for governance and public trust. It demands either refutation or explanation. It receives neither.
Instead, Mohamed’s article relies heavily on counter-accusations – questioning the credibility and intentions of critics, and portraying the critique as part of a broader effort to undermine reforms. This shifts attention away from the claims themselves, but in doing so leaves those claims intact. This pattern has deeper implications. Abdi Sheik’s central argument is that the president’s political approach is marked by adaptability that can appear as inconsistency – messages shifting depending on audience and context. A response that avoids specifics and pivots to general framing risks reinforcing that perception rather than dispelling it.
An effective defense would have looked very different. It would have addressed each allegation directly, provided evidence where necessary, corrected inaccuracies, and acknowledged complexity where appropriate. It would have separated legitimate policy evolution from contradiction and clarified statements made in different contexts and languages.
In the end, Mohamed Olad’s article does not dismantle the critique it set out to answer. It challenges the critic, but not the substance of the criticism. By leaving key allegations unanswered, it allows them to persist – arguably with greater force than before.
Shukri Mohammed
Email: shukri.mohammed1969@gmail.com
