You are doing selective reading of the chief justice's argument. What he says is that in parliamentary democracy, the party with the most seats in the parliament selects the Prime Minister & he yields most of the powers with the president being ceremonial.
But in the Somali context, there are no parties, the president campaigns & after victory he (not the parliament) selects the Prime Minister. Since this is the political context it becomes difficult for an elected official to have LESS powers than an official he/she selected & this is the essential controversy in Somalia today. People think that a none elected official should wield more powers than an elected official. It's undemocratic & should be reversed to avoid these recurring problems.
I agree wholeheartedly, we should have a President/VP, and then we wouldn't have to deal with issues like this every year. But as it stands that is not what the constitution says. People think the PM should have more power because that is what the constitution says. So when the President swears to uphold the constitution, he is swearing to renegade most of his authority and powers to the person he deems most fit. That same constitution does not allow him to sack the PM either.
TL your argument is valid on how it should be, but what about how it is currently is?
