Saturday February 15, 2025
Mogadishu (HOL) — Somalia’s National Auditor, Ahmed Iise Guutaale, has accused the judiciary of obstructing a national anti-corruption audit after multiple courts failed to acknowledge or respond to compliance review notices. Despite repeated attempts at communication, judicial officials did not confirm receipt of the documents, unlike other government institutions, including both houses of Parliament, the Office of the President, and the Prime Minister’s Office.
The Auditor’s Office launched the judiciary audit on January 25, 2025, as part of its annual compliance review for 2024. The office issued formal audit initiation letters to the Benadir Regional Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, seeking to examine their financial management and legal adherence. However, the judiciary failed to respond, prompting further action.
After receiving no reply to emails and phone calls, a delegation—including the Deputy Auditor for Investigations, the Senior Legal Advisor, and an Audit Officer—delivered the letters in person. A Supreme Court official, however, stated that he lacked the authority to accept documents from the Auditor’s Office. The judiciary’s continued noncompliance led the Auditor’s Office to escalate the matter to senior government officials, including the President, the Speakers of both parliamentary houses, and the Prime Minister, on February 11, 2025.
The dispute escalated further after the Benadir Regional Court issued a summons for Ahmed Iise Guutaale, requiring him to appear before the court on February 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The court, citing Articles 254, 257, and 267 of the Somali Penal Code, accused Guutaale of attempting to interfere in judicial affairs, obstructing the execution of court rulings, and blocking operational funds allocated for judicial functions.
According to the summons, Guutaale allegedly disrupted the enforcement of previous court decisions, including financial rulings. The Benadir Regional Court warned that failure to appear would result in legal consequences in accordance with national laws.
The judiciary audit follows longstanding concerns about financial mismanagement and legal noncompliance within the courts. A prior review covering 2016-2017 exposed widespread irregularities and negligence, prompting reform recommendations (Ref: XHG/HG/0202/2017). A 2022 Supreme Court compliance review revealed further procedural violations, reinforcing the need for corrective measures.
Chief Justice Bashe Ahmed Yusuf previously requested an audit of the Benadir Regional Appeals Court in July 2022, citing financial misconduct (Ref: MS/KC/64/2022). His request highlighted internal mismanagement within the judiciary. Additionally, multiple corruption cases in 2023 led to the suspension of several judges. An official statement from the Attorney General’s Office, released on July 25, 2023 (Ref: XXC/4881/2023), confirmed these findings. Further, a 2024 audit uncovered an unauthorized judicial account containing unexplained deposits of $21,922.60 (Ref: XHG/HG/129/2025).
The standoff between the Auditor’s Office and the judiciary has raised alarms over transparency and accountability in Somalia’s legal system. While judicial officials argue that the audit falls outside the Auditor’s Office’s jurisdiction, Guutaale insists that his office is acting within its legal mandate.
The judiciary audit comes amid renewed concerns about Somalia’s ranking as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Somalia 179th out of 180 countries, with a score of 9 out of 100, marking a decline from the previous year. Since 2007, Somalia has consistently been among the lowest-ranked countries, highlighting entrenched governance failures, weak institutions, and a lack of political will to address systemic corruption.
Despite efforts such as the establishment of the Office of the Auditor General in 2014 and the Public Procurement, Concessions, and Disposal Act, corruption remains a pervasive issue. Transparency International attributes this to weak enforcement mechanisms, political interference, and a lack of accountability within government institutions, including the judiciary.
The judiciary’s refusal to cooperate has intensified calls for greater oversight, with some government officials advocating for additional measures to enforce compliance.
