Welcome to SomaliNet Forums, a friendly and gigantic Somali centric active community. Login to hide this block

You are currently viewing this page as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, ask questions, educate others, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many, many other features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join SomaliNet forums today! Please note that registered members with over 50 posts see no ads whatsoever! Are you new to SomaliNet? These forums with millions of posts are just one section of a much larger site. Just visit the front page and use the top links to explore deep into SomaliNet oasis, Somali singles, Somali business directory, Somali job bank and much more. Click here to login. If you need to reset your password, click here. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Daily chitchat on Somali politics.

Moderator: Moderators

OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE
User avatar
Sharmarke91
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:20 am

Re: Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Postby Sharmarke91 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:24 pm

The actual legal case for Somaliland's independence is not up for debate, beyond the AU fact-finding mission mentioned by Xildiid above, the Office of Chief Government Law Advisor of South Africa issued their official opinion on the issue of Somaliland's independence, clearly stating that Somaliland does qualify for independence as a sovereign state. This is the law advisor of the government of South Africa.

The issue of Somaliland's independence has more to do with international indifference than proper legal backing.

Though your referencing of Quebec is interesting, as this is absolutely worst case scenario for Somaliland, which is a referendum held across the whole territory of Somaliland (like Quebec) on the question of independence, and we know what that referendum will return.
The issue at discussion is, is Somaliland seceding or is it merely dissolving a union.

The legal question would be, is Somaliland entitled to dissolve the union of the State of Somaliland and the State of Somalia, that resulted in the creation of the Somali Republic?

Somaliland's legal case rests on one fundamental issue that is "can the 1961 retroactive Act of Union be legally binding?". Provided this Act of Union is found to be void due to its retroactive effect then legally the State of Somaliland (and equally the State of Somalia) still exist as legal entities and there is in fact no need for Somaliland to dissolve a "union" because there was never a union. If however, this Act is binding then this means Somaliland has no legitimacy to dissolve it. Am of the opinion it was legally binding, the document Somaliland references to thwart and counter this, is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which is a very weak argument. The treaty entered into force in 1980, Somalia is not a party to it and additionally the treaty does not apply to any treaty that was signed before 1980. The treaty also states that a treaty which within its provisions stipulates that it is intended to act retroactively - is binding. The Act of Union makes it very clear that it intends to act retroactively.

The case Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 is concerned with the question can a territory that is part of a sovereign state unilaterally secede? - Such as Somaliland and its parent country Somalia. The court held that it would be illegal both in domestic law and international law for such unilateral succession. Thus, if the 1961 Act of Union is a legally binding document then similarly Somaliland is unilaterally declaring Independence and seceding - which is illegal. The same issue happened recently in Catalonia in Spain.

A referendum has nothing to do with law. A referendum is designed to provide an indication of the public's desired political settlement. For example the referendum that caused Brexit is not legally binding, is the enactment of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 of the Westminster parliament that triggers the process to exit the EU. Therefore, Somalia must first allow for the referendum to occur and then pass an act in parliament to allow Somaliland to be an independent country.

Both the report of African Union fact finding mission and the Office of Chief Government Law Advisor of South Africa are not binding legal documents and therefore cannot be used in a court of law. Additionally, both documents only state Somaliland 'qualifies for statehood'. They do not elaborate on how and why it legally qualifies for statehood.

Nobody disputes that Somaliland qualifies for statehood, all that is required for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is;

(1) a permanent population
(2) a defined territory
(3) a government and
(4) The capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Somaliland meets all four points, but so do Puntland, Jubbaland, South-western, Hirshabelle and Galmudug. That is if they wanted to be independent countries of course.

This is why Somaliland is considered a de facto state (existing in reality) as oppose to de jure (existing in law).

Qualification for statehood and sovereignty are two different principles. Whilst the former is concerned with the bench mark required to form a state and later is concerned with legality and territorial integrity.

User avatar
Sharmarke91
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:20 am

Re: Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Postby Sharmarke91 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:55 pm



The word is secede. You do not secede from a union, you dissolve it.

Secondly, we ratified the Act of Union in Hargeisa on June 27, 1960 because we were sincere about Somaliweyn but the mongrels of Zoomalia did not ratify the bilateral treaty thus making the union null and void, as presented by the AU fact finding mission of 2005.

Somalilands case is more than legitimate. Our biggest obstacle is geopolitics.

Few Isaaq avenged their loved ones who were killed by Gudabiirsi faqash militia despite SNM warnings of not harming anyone. Nonetheless, less than 100 people were killed in Awdal.

Now compare that to the crimes committed by the treacherous Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutus against the interriverine communities that lead to the deaths of 300.000 civilians because of a man made famine.

Today the mongrels Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutu are using AMISOM against the same communities that they harmed in the past, accusing them of being AS because they want to steal their land.

Isaaq is honorable. We sacrificed more than all clans combined for the fake Somaliweyn and ungrateful Zoomalis.
The mistake in the 1960 acts was corrected later in January 1961 with the Act of Union. Thus, both the State of Somalia and the State of Somaliland ceased to exist as legal entities and was replaced by the Somali Republic.

Therefore, neither of those former states can dissolve the union because there were no terms about a possible dissolution of the union. In fact the first Article of Somaliland's Act of 1960 stated "the State of Somaliland and the State of Somalia do hereby unite and shall forever remain united".

Hence, the modern day Somaliland has no legitimacy to dissolve the union (Nor would the former State of Somalia be able to), as it is simply seceding from the Somali Republic - and that is illegal both in domestic and international law. Read the case Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217.

Sxb, all Somali clans have done uncondonable things against their fellow Somalis and the Isaaq are not an exception.

The Darod might of invited AMISOM into Somalia but the Isaaq have decided to unilaterally break up the country. I find the later is worse.

lol The Isaaq didn't unite with Somalia for the sake of Somalinimo, they did it because they wanted the Hawd and Reserve area to be brought back from Ethiopia. Once they realized this was not possible after the 1977 war, they decided to actively engage in treacherous acts to break up the country.

Its all about self interest,

The Darod are the biggest proponents of Somaliweyn today not because due to their love for Somalinimo but because they would gain the most by a greater Somalia. The Hawiye are comfortable as long as the capital remains Mogadishu.

The interriverine people you refer to want land they have vacated long ago and don't belong to them anymore, in Gedo and the two Jubbas - which is unreasonable and unacceptable. Its would be like the Dhulbahante laying claim to El Afweyn and Gar'adag, land they haven't settled in over a century.

Also, Al Shabab contains all Somali clans including Isaaq and no particular clan is blamed. In fact the majority of its members today are Hawiye, so I don't know were you get that info from.
The drafted Act of Union of 1960 was accepted as a legitimate bilateral treaty by both parties.

Only Somaliland ratified the Act of Union of 1960, making the bilateral treaty and union null and void.

In 1961 Somalia tried to formally annex Somaliland by adopting a constitution despite the absence of a legal union.

The politicians of Somalia called for a meeting in the national assembly excluding SL politicians and they ratified a new bilateral treaty unilateraly (Atto Di Unione).

Again.. a bilateral treaty between two parties without two signatures is invalid and on top of that they tried to pass it retrospectively (signed in 1961 but valid from 1960 :lol:)

The AU's fact finding mission to SL in 2005 confirmed that Somaliland case is more than legitimate and unique in the African context, disproving the notion of pandoras box.

The overwhelming majority of Isaaq were pro Somaliweyn and Isaaq sacrificed more than any other clan for 'Somaliweyn' despite being marginalized.

It was the execution of Isaaq soldiers in 1978, deliberate harassment + murder of our civilians in 1979, 1980 and Afweynes refusal to solve the problems despite pleas from our elders that lead to the creation of SNM in 1981.

Nonetheless some Isaaq were always aware of the treacherous, malign nature and intentions of Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutus hence the failed coup of 1961. It only failed because most Isaaq were not convinced unlike 1981 with the SNM.

You are being disingenous which is something your people are known for. The interriverine communities are the single largest block in Somalia, they still inhabit the most fertile areas in Somalia and they are marginalized by Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutus who want to steal their land. As if it wasnt enough with the crimes against humanity committed against them by Dofaar and Hutus.

These people constitute the majority of AS footsoldiers for a reason and Zoomalia (Dofaar + Hutu) will never defeat AS.
Both parliaments were sitting together when the act of union was passed in 1961, the only issue which can be contended is, can it act retroactively.

Once we gain legal confirmation of this we'll know if Somaliland should be seceding or dissolving a union.

All somali clans are the same sxb. We've all done some fkd up shit, to serve our interests.

Xildiiid
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 7200
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:45 pm
Location: Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak

Re: Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Postby Xildiiid » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:11 pm



The mistake in the 1960 acts was corrected later in January 1961 with the Act of Union. Thus, both the State of Somalia and the State of Somaliland ceased to exist as legal entities and was replaced by the Somali Republic.

Therefore, neither of those former states can dissolve the union because there were no terms about a possible dissolution of the union. In fact the first Article of Somaliland's Act of 1960 stated "the State of Somaliland and the State of Somalia do hereby unite and shall forever remain united".

Hence, the modern day Somaliland has no legitimacy to dissolve the union (Nor would the former State of Somalia be able to), as it is simply seceding from the Somali Republic - and that is illegal both in domestic and international law. Read the case Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217.

Sxb, all Somali clans have done uncondonable things against their fellow Somalis and the Isaaq are not an exception.

The Darod might of invited AMISOM into Somalia but the Isaaq have decided to unilaterally break up the country. I find the later is worse.

lol The Isaaq didn't unite with Somalia for the sake of Somalinimo, they did it because they wanted the Hawd and Reserve area to be brought back from Ethiopia. Once they realized this was not possible after the 1977 war, they decided to actively engage in treacherous acts to break up the country.

Its all about self interest,

The Darod are the biggest proponents of Somaliweyn today not because due to their love for Somalinimo but because they would gain the most by a greater Somalia. The Hawiye are comfortable as long as the capital remains Mogadishu.

The interriverine people you refer to want land they have vacated long ago and don't belong to them anymore, in Gedo and the two Jubbas - which is unreasonable and unacceptable. Its would be like the Dhulbahante laying claim to El Afweyn and Gar'adag, land they haven't settled in over a century.

Also, Al Shabab contains all Somali clans including Isaaq and no particular clan is blamed. In fact the majority of its members today are Hawiye, so I don't know were you get that info from.
The drafted Act of Union of 1960 was accepted as a legitimate bilateral treaty by both parties.

Only Somaliland ratified the Act of Union of 1960, making the bilateral treaty and union null and void.

In 1961 Somalia tried to formally annex Somaliland by adopting a constitution despite the absence of a legal union.

The politicians of Somalia called for a meeting in the national assembly excluding SL politicians and they ratified a new bilateral treaty unilateraly (Atto Di Unione).

Again.. a bilateral treaty between two parties without two signatures is invalid and on top of that they tried to pass it retrospectively (signed in 1961 but valid from 1960 :lol:)

The AU's fact finding mission to SL in 2005 confirmed that Somaliland case is more than legitimate and unique in the African context, disproving the notion of pandoras box.

The overwhelming majority of Isaaq were pro Somaliweyn and Isaaq sacrificed more than any other clan for 'Somaliweyn' despite being marginalized.

It was the execution of Isaaq soldiers in 1978, deliberate harassment + murder of our civilians in 1979, 1980 and Afweynes refusal to solve the problems despite pleas from our elders that lead to the creation of SNM in 1981.

Nonetheless some Isaaq were always aware of the treacherous, malign nature and intentions of Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutus hence the failed coup of 1961. It only failed because most Isaaq were not convinced unlike 1981 with the SNM.

You are being disingenous which is something your people are known for. The interriverine communities are the single largest block in Somalia, they still inhabit the most fertile areas in Somalia and they are marginalized by Dofaar Ismaciil and Hutus who want to steal their land. As if it wasnt enough with the crimes against humanity committed against them by Dofaar and Hutus.

These people constitute the majority of AS footsoldiers for a reason and Zoomalia (Dofaar + Hutu) will never defeat AS.
Both parliaments were sitting together when the act of union was passed in 1961, the only issue which can be contended is, can it act retroactively.

Once we gain legal confirmation of this we'll know if Somaliland should be seceding or dissolving a union.

All somali clans are the same sxb. We've all done some fkd up shit, to serve our interests.
Maxamed Xaaji Ibrahim Cigaal confirmed that they were excluded from the session and that the politcians from Somalia spoke Italian so that no one outside their group could understand, even the bilateral treaty (not agreed upon) was written in Italian. It was a deliberate attempt to formally annex Somaliland.

Laws are usually not passed retrospectively, especially in territory where the legislators do not have jurisdiction i.e Somaliland.

One example highlighting this is the trial of the failed coup by SL officers in 1961. The supreme court in Mogadishu could not convict the officers because the alleged crime was committed in territory that did not fall under Somalias jurisdiction. The reason being no legal union between Somaliland and Somalia.

Thats how the fake story about Adan Adde pardoning the officers came about.

Our case is more than legitimate.

Darood and Hawiye have committed unprecedented acts of treason since 1890 and they've committed crimes against humanity in southern Somalia.

No other clan has done that..

User avatar
Sharmarke91
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:20 am

Re: Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Postby Sharmarke91 » Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:11 am

Maxamed Xaaji Ibrahim Cigaal confirmed that they were excluded from the session and that the politcians from Somalia spoke Italian so that no one outside their group could understand, even the bilateral treaty (not agreed upon) was written in Italian. It was a deliberate attempt to formally annex Somaliland.


There were was no need to anex or deceive Somaliland because everything was agreed upon prior to unification in 1959. Somaliland was content and satisfied that the capital would be Mogadishu, the constitution till a new Constitution is adopted would be Somalia's and that the two assemblies would be merged etc. So, why would Somalia try to deceive and trick Somaliland, when it already possessed its blessings?

Mohahmed Haji Ibrahim Egal was disingenuous, why would they exclude him? :lol:

There was no contention, plus the new Act of Union was pretty much the same as the Act passed by Somaliland.
Laws are usually not passed retrospectively, especially in territory where the legislators do not have jurisdiction i.e Somaliland.

Yeah laws are not usually retroactive but there is no reason why they can't be. There are plenty of examples.
One example highlighting this is the trial of the failed coup by SL officers in 1961. The supreme court in Mogadishu could not convict the officers because the alleged crime was committed in territory that did not fall under Somalias jurisdiction. The reason being no legal union between Somaliland and Somalia.

No your wrong there, the reason why Somaliland did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Somalia was because the two legal systems have not been merged yet. This was provided for in the Act of Union at Article 3. So, it had nothing to do with the unification of the two countries.

Even Paolo Contini, the chief legal advisor to the Somali Republic, said:

There is no doubt that on the first of July a full and lawful union was
formed by the will of the people of the two territories through their
elected representatives. However, the legal formalities had not been
completed in time…the matter was clarified seven months later by the
adoption of the new Act of Union with retroactive effect as from July 1,
1960 for the whole of the Republic.

Paolo Contini, The Somali Republic: An Experiment in Legal Integration (London: Frank
Cass, 1969), pp. 8–11

Xildiiid
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 7200
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:45 pm
Location: Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak

Re: Like Waqooyi Galbeed, Waqooyi Bari received their Ethiopian taxman

Postby Xildiiid » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:28 am

Maxamed Xaaji Ibrahim Cigaal confirmed that they were excluded from the session and that the politcians from Somalia spoke Italian so that no one outside their group could understand, even the bilateral treaty (not agreed upon) was written in Italian. It was a deliberate attempt to formally annex Somaliland.


There were was no need to anex or deceive Somaliland because everything was agreed upon prior to unification in 1959. Somaliland was content and satisfied that the capital would be Mogadishu, the constitution till a new Constitution is adopted would be Somalia's and that the two assemblies would be merged etc. So, why would Somalia try to deceive and trick Somaliland, when it already possessed its blessings?

Mohahmed Haji Ibrahim Egal was disingenuous, why would they exclude him? :lol:

There was no contention, plus the new Act of Union was pretty much the same as the Act passed by Somaliland.
Laws are usually not passed retrospectively, especially in territory where the legislators do not have jurisdiction i.e Somaliland.

Yeah laws are not usually retroactive but there is no reason why they can't be. There are plenty of examples.
One example highlighting this is the trial of the failed coup by SL officers in 1961. The supreme court in Mogadishu could not convict the officers because the alleged crime was committed in territory that did not fall under Somalias jurisdiction. The reason being no legal union between Somaliland and Somalia.

No your wrong there, the reason why Somaliland did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Somalia was because the two legal systems have not been merged yet. This was provided for in the Act of Union at Article 3. So, it had nothing to do with the unification of the two countries.

Even Paolo Contini, the chief legal advisor to the Somali Republic, said:

There is no doubt that on the first of July a full and lawful union was
formed by the will of the people of the two territories through their
elected representatives. However, the legal formalities had not been
completed in time…the matter was clarified seven months later by the
adoption of the new Act of Union with retroactive effect as from July 1,
1960 for the whole of the Republic.

Paolo Contini, The Somali Republic: An Experiment in Legal Integration (London: Frank
Cass, 1969), pp. 8–11
If they were sincere they would ratify the bilateral treaty that was agreed upon pre independence because it would cement the union.

The 'Atto di Unione' was not similar but thats not the point. The point is they drafted their own bilateral treaty and ratified it unilateraly. Since when are bilateral treaties ratified unilaterally? Maybe you should look up the etymology of the term bilateral..

Nonsense, the failed coup took place December 10, 1961 (almost 1962), months after the Walaweyn drafted and ratified their own treaty unilaterally with "retroactive affect" yet Mogadishus supreme court couldnt convict the officers because the alleged crime was committed in territory that was not under Somalias jurisdiction.

The supreme court in Mogadishu was headed by a European at that time, otherwise the verdict wouldve been different because of Somali corruption and disregard for rule of law.

The story of Aden Adde pardoning the officers was created in order to distract the public and hide the truth. Adan Adde was not benevolent, they wanted to indict the officers with treason but they failed.

Zoomalia has no claims on SL. Secondly the goal with the union was to liberate and unite all Somalis. That wont happen because Afweyne signed away NFD and K5 + Djiboutis independent position.

Wax Somaliland iyo Zoomalia isugu hadhay ayaanba jirin.


OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE

Hello, Has your question been answered on this page? We hope yes. If not, you can start a new thread and post your question(s). It is free to join. You can also search our over a million pages (just scroll up and use our site-wide search box) or browse the forums.

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Politics - General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests