Historical facts of the never existing UNION.

[ADNAAN]

Boy..u don't wanna miss this article......go on read it..very interesting.

 

Recognition of Somaliland Versus the legitimacy of Somalia

 

 

The turmoil that followed the demise of the Somali Republic presented a new challenge to the world community in general; and the African continent in particular. The collapsed Somali state split into two defacto countries along the old colonial boundaries: The Republic of Somaliland and the chaos and strife torn Southern Somalia. Today, the issue is not whether to recognize the republic of Somaliland; it is a question of when to admit this new nation into the global village. The case of Somaliland is based on sound historical and constitutional facts and it is exercising its rights within the boundaries of its own territory in accordance with the protocols of international law. No boundary changes are involved in the case of Somaliland but Somalia that is in pursuit of frivolous claim over a territory it never owned in the first place.

 

However, the dilemma facing the African Union and its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity, is the issue of international borders.

 

1- For example, among the principles enshrined in article 4, paragraph “b†of the Constitutive Act of the African Union is the following: “The Union shall function in accordance with the following principles:

 

b- Respect of borders existing on achievement of independence;â€

 

2-The charter Of the Organisation of the African Unity also deals with the subject of boundaries on similar general terms. Article III, section three, reads as follows:

“Respect for the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of each state for its inalienable right to independent existence.â€

 

A rigorous scrutiny of the two articles reveals that Somaliland is in fact in full compliance with both articles and if this is a serious matter of contention, it is no more than a technicality at all. This is a nation reverting to the old borders inherited at the time of independence and simultaneously renewing its nationhood.

It is also a matter of historical record that on June 26th, 1960, over thirty five nations extended recognition to Somaliland. Among these countries were the united Arab Republic- union of Egypt and Syria, Cuba, Israel, United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Mr. Christian Herter, the United States Secretary of State at time despatched a congratulatory telegram on the occasion of independence.

Also, on the day of independence, the government of Somaliland and the government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed a number of bilateral agreements in Hargeisa, among them:

 

1- Draft interim agreement between the government of the united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland and the government of Somaliland for a united kingdom aid mission;

 

2- Draft public officer’s agreement between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of Somaliland. These agreements were signed in Hargeisa, Somaliland on June 26th, 1960 .These bilateral agreements form an integral part of the “report of the Somaliland Protectorate Constitutional Conference held in London in May, 1960.’

The real challenge for the international community and the African Union is to establish the legality of the defunct Somali Republic from the day of the independence of British Somaliland Protectorate and its eventual union with the former United Nations Trusteeship Territory of Somalia. The following is synopsis of the said union from historical and legal perspectives:

 

THE UNION OF 1960

 

The prelude to unification:

On April 6th, 1960, the legislative Assembly of British Somaliland passed declaration of intend of independence by June 26th, 1960 and an eventual unification with the former Italian Trust territory of Somalia on 1st July, 1960. The Italian colony was scheduled for independence on December 2nd, 1960. The government of Somaliland requested the British government to move forward the date of independence of Somalia to July 1st, 1960 and the British government did so through a motion submitted at the United Nations General Assembly.

On April 16th, 1960 the National Assembly of Somalia and the Legislative Assembly of Somaliland issued a joint communiqué to the effect that the two territories will unite on July 1st, 1960.

The creation of the failed Somali State was based on some unrealistic and fundamentally untenable false assumptions: The dream of the Somali independence movements of the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s was the ultimate unification of all ethnic Somali communities of East Africa under one jurisdiction by any means necessary. The undercurrent of this noble cause stipulated the creation of a racially and ethnically pure Somali entity comprising of former British Somaliland, French Somaliland( Republic of Djibouti now), the Hararghe region of Eastern Ethiopia, Italian Somaliland, and the Northern Frontier District of Kenya.

 

The unification process:

 

The chronology and the events surrounding the union of Somaliland and Somalia are well documented historical facts. First of all, “The development of the constitution of the Somali Republic†is a legal document written by Dr. Haji N.A Noor Muhammed), a one time advocate of the Supreme Court of India and a member of the Madras Bar Association. Under the Opex programme of the United Nations, the legal expertise and the service of Judge Dr. Haji Noor was provided to the government of the Somali Republic after independence. This magistrate held the position of the Vice-president of the Supreme Court of the Somali Republic and he was an expert on international law.

According to Dr. Haji Noor Mohammed:

“0n 1 July the legislatures of two newly independent states met at Mogadiscio in Join session and proclaimed the establishment of the Somali Republic. The same day, the president of the legislative assembly of Somalia, Hon. Aden Abdulla Osman, who was elected as the provisional president of the Somali republic, promulgated the constitution, which was originally prepared for Somalia and from that date the provisional constitution came into force throughout the republic.â€

The apparent flaws of these extrajudicial measures will not survive the initial procedural wrangling in an international court of law because of the following:

 

A: The proclamation of the Somali Republic was an agreement in principle that was never enacted into law;

B: The two draft Acts of Union were never reconciled or merged into one piece of legislation for parliamentary debate;

C: In a parliamentary democracy, a president cannot promulgate a constitution without first submitting the measure for a national referendum followed by a parliamentary debate on the articles of the constitution. Once all amendments/additions/alterations are completed, then and only then, shall the final bill be submitted for the final signature of the president. The measures and the processes taken by president Aden Abdille Othman Daar were atypical of an annexation of one nation by another. Without the approval and the prior consent of the legislative assembly of Somaliland, he unilaterally signed the constitution of the former Italian colony as the law of the land. He did so with the advice of a team of legal and constitutional experts provided by the Italian government.

In the following paragraph, Dr Noor Muhammed highlights the inherent shortcomings of the processes and the procedures adopted in the unification of the two territories of Somaliland and Somalia:

“Some doubts where expressed concerning the legal effects of the instruments relating to the union. The act of the Union of Somalia and the Union of Somaliland and Somalia Law where both drafted in [the] form of bilateral agreements, but neither of them was signed by the representative of Somaliland and Somalia. The Somalia Act of Union was approved "in principle" but not enacted into the law.â€

In the absence of verifiable documentary evidence attesting to a genuine “Act of Union†between Somaliland and Somalia, any agreements “in principle†or any other forms of “bilateral agreements†are subject to cancellation without notice because such instruments do not have any legal weight. This is one of the legal challenges facing the former politicians and the current war lords of Somalia. They have to prove the constitutional legitimacy of the Somali Republic. The sentiments and the euphoria of greater Somalia are dead for good at the present time.

The concluding remarks of the legal opinion of Dr. Muhammed are summarized in the following segment:

“The decree-law of 1 July 1960 was signed by the provisional president to the deal with some of the legal effects of the union. However, in the absence of conversion into law in accordance with Article 63 of the constitution, this decree-law never came in to force.â€

The law of July 1st, 1960 is even in direct contradiction to article 63 of the constitution of the former Italian colony, let alone incorporate a single inch of the territory of Somaliland. The proponents of the often ill-defined and sanctified dogma of the political independence, the unity, the territorial integrity, and the sovereignty of the failed Somali state will have no easy task on their hands and they should produce more than these hollow rhetorical slogans. The days of the evangelical preaching and canonisation of the unity Somali Republic are over. There is no such a legal entity called the Somali Republic that ever existed!

The next segment is a summary of the reflections of a British Historian, an anthropologist, and an expert on Somali affairs since colonial times. Mr. Drysdale was an advisor to the civilian governments of Somalia prior to the military regime. The opinions of Mr. Drysdale come to the same conclusions reached by Dr. Muhammed in the preceding section. The two briefs are part of the historical and legal aspects of the incorporation of the Somali Republic as of July 1st, 1960.

According to Richard Drysdale, the process of unification of the two states was illegal and unconstitutional because of some basic flaws. He also attests to the fact that the legislatures of Somaliland and Somalia have prepared two separate texts as far as the so called “Act of Union†is concerned. He points out some variations in the two texts:

“discrepancy between the two texts were such that on June 30th the Somaliland legislature, whilst agreeing in principle to act of union, insisted that the two governments agree to the text of single act of union to be presented for approval of the join legislatures.â€

The representatives of the government of Somaliland noticed the apparent inconsistencies between the two texts- the Somaliland draft act of union was prepared in English; while the Somalia version was in Italian. Without agreeing on a single text, the provisional president signed the constitution of the former Italian colony into law. With the stroke of the pen of President Abdille Othman Daar, an illegitimate entity called THE SOMALI REPUBLIC came into existence, and the following excerpt from the recollections of Mr. Drysdale elaborates the process:

â€At midnight of June 30th Somalia became independent under terms of its own constitution. On July 1st, 1960, the two legislatures met to elect a provisional president of the Somali republic, though no act of union had been signed. The president has immediately signed a decree entitled the “law of union of state of Somaliland and Somalia". It was not promulgated since it had not been passed by the national Assembly.â€

 

THE PROCESS FLAWS:

 

The president circumvented the decorum of parliamentary protocol and all norms of procedure in an unwarranted haste. We can surmise from this evidence that the luminaries of Walaweynian Somalia had been conniving to incorporate Somaliland as a new found territory without any legal documentation. The recommendations of the integration commission are a sufficient enough proof that southern Somalis were bargaining in bad faith from the very beginning. The commission recommended a referendum to fix this constitutional nightmare- the challenge was there from day one and without a proper “Act of Unionâ€, the new nation was about to split into two countries.

In July of 1961, a single referendum on the constitution was held in Somaliland and Somalia. In the absence of a real “Act of Unionâ€, the country can not be treated as a unitary state. In fact, this exercise was not a plebiscite on the constitution but it was a disguise for “RETRACTIVE ACT OF UNION.†The referendum fell short on both counts. It neither established an Act of Union nor does it create a legal entity called the Somali Republic.

Retroactive in this case presents a surfeit of negative connotations. For one thing, in a parliamentary democracy, it is a repressive piece of legislation enacted to close or cover up a legal or constitutional loophole. Such extra judicial measures are contrary to the spirit and the essence of the principles and practices of contemporary democracy. If and when this issue is submitted to the scrutiny of an international panel of jurists, then and only then, shall the validity of the act under such law examined. The analysis and the onus are on the purpose and the intended effect of the act itself on the future of the collapsed Somali state.

In deed this was a very regressive law designed to have such sweeping powers so as to take effect at a certain point in the past [ July 1st, 1960 in this case]. In other words, the Somali government of that era resorted to such questionable tactics in 1961.

The constitution submitted for public approval was entirely that of the former Italian colony. The only exception was the last article dealing with pay scales and pensions because on a comparative basis, the Somaliland civil services pay and pensions were superior to that of Somalia. The referendum process was fraudulent from beginning to end and here are the reasons according to Mr. Drysdale:

â€A consultative commission for integration was then appointed and its finds were subject to a referendum held in July 1961. The Somali national league, the principal party of the north, campaigned against the ratification of the constitution. Percentage votes against were: - Hargeisa (72%), Berber (69%), Burro (66%) and Erigavo (69%). The total number of votes cast in Somalia as whole was said to be 1, 952,660 out of which 100,000 votes were said to have been recorded in the North.

The new constitution was promulgated, but not before a dramatic military coup d’etat in the North had unsuccessfully attempted to restore sovereignty Somaliland. The senior officers were brought to trial in Mogadishu before a British judge on charges of treason. He acquitted the officers because the had no jurisdiction over Somaliland. There had been no act of union between the two states.â€

 

The coup of December 10th, 1961:

 

On December 10th, 1961, The Somaliland Scouts Regiment (Commissioned Military Officers) attempted a coup d’etat to reclaim the independence of their Country. However, the attempt failed and the officers were court-martial at a special tribunal set up in Mogadiscio, Somalia. The charge against the officers was high treason. The Somali government assembled an impressive team of criminal and constitutional lawyers. The prosecution team was headed by Mr. Continni, a constitutional advisor and legal counsel to president of the Somali Republic, Aden Abdille Othman. The Somali government also hired the services of Mr. Robert Shaw, a British constitutional lawyer, and a former magistrate of Somaliland Supreme Court to act as the presiding magistrate for the occasion.

The defendant’s families hired, at their own expense, an equally qualified team of defence lawyers headed by an Indian constitutional expert called Mr Manjit Singh.

The final verdict of the British magistrate set a legal precedent that shocked the politicians of that era. This judgement put the hoax of a unitary Somali state into its final resting place forever. The final ruling was as follows:

 

“In the administration of the criminal justice on matters of high treason, the oath of allegiance is paramount in the case of military officers, which ascertains the citizenship of the accused. As of today, the constitution of the Somali republic has no jurisdictional validity beyond the boundaries of the former Italian colony :eek: . Without first establishing a proper legal entity incorporating a union of the two former colonies, the current constitution of the Somali republic is not applicable to any citizen of the former British colony.

On the matter of the documents or instruments presented to the court, the Indian penal code in fact carries the death penalty. However, it is only valid within the territory of the former British colony. It is not part of the criminal justice system of the Somali republic.

The accused never made an oath of allegiance to a nation called Somali republic. Therefore, they are not citizens of the Somali republic :eek: . Consequently, they are cleared of all criminal charges- including that of high treason.â€

 

 

The presiding judge ordered the immediate release of the accused without any further delays. The unitary Somali state ceased to exist at the exact moment. The Somali government ordered the British magistrate to leave the country within twelve hours.

(Also immediately all ties with the common wealth has ended by the Somali government)

 

The significance of the court verdict

The significance of this forty-five year old ruling has a direct bearing on today’s Somali conflict. This judgment is very crucial and at the same time constitutes an integral part that should not be over looked by any crisis management or conflict resolution think tank dealing with the Somali quagmire. This historic case established the following:

 

* That the Unitary Somali State has no sound legal and constitutional foundation.

 

* That the accused officers were not even citizens of the accusing state.

 

* That documents (-the constitution of the Somali republic, the Indian penal code) used in the case was not an integral part of the criminal justice system of the Somali republic.

 

* That court martial established the unconstitutionality of the union act of 1960 on legal and procedural grounds.

 

* And the most important aspect of this historic ruling is that it clearly established the Jurisdictional reach and the validity of the constitution used in the trial.

The historic journey of the Somali Republic ended where it began. The rest of the story is: who is a citizen of the defunct Somali Republic?

Thank you and God bless the Nation of Somaliland.

Ahmed Ali Ibrahim[sabeyse]

Scarborough, Ontario. Canada.

asabeyse@hotmail.com

May 30th, 2005

Notes:

1. The Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 25th, 1963.

2. The Constitutive Act of the African Union, July 9th, 2002.

3. Somaliland Protectorate Constitutional Conference, London, May, 1960.

4. Summary: Submission on Statehood and Recognition of Republic of Somaliland [Anonymous].

5. The development of the Constitution of the Somali Republic, Dr. Haji N.A. Noor Muhammed.

6. Somaliland 1991-Report By John Drysdale, Global-Stats 1991.

 

 

P.S.

 

It was Gen. Abdi keyd who attempted the coup and ironically enough his cousin (abwaan:ali sugule) was the one who at the same time wrote the famous song “nin lagu seexdow ha seexan, waligaa soo jeedoo ha seexanâ€, a situation which fits the Somali adage “Gudinyahey hadaan badhkey kugu jirin imaad goyseenâ€.

[Baashi]

^here we go again . Misinfo continues. I once read somewhere that if u tell a lie long enough and loud enough folks will swallow the crap or even worse will propagate farther!

 

Keyd was not a general. There was no coup. Keyd was demoted and forced to take orders from a ranking officer with far superior qualification. Blame the Brits as they were not generous enough to educate its subjects. He naturally protested and he was accused of and charged with mutiny. Guess who appointed the new ranking officer in the first place, prosecuted Keyd and found him guilty! This info are readily available but folks like u take this crap at face value...why?

 

Get a grip sxb! It ain’t happening and other Somali are not the ones holding SL back. Get many many more in-laws like Drysdale , Iqbal n other opportunistic lobbyist and have them do a better job @ offices that matter .

[ADNAAN]

Originally posted by Baashi:

^here we go again . Misinfo continues. I once read somewhere that if u tell a lie long enough and loud enough folks will swallow the crap or even worse will propagate farther!

baashe which part of the article are you refering to, wish to ellaborate.

 

 

Originally posted by Baashi:

Keyd was not a general. There was no coup. Keyd was demoted and forced to take orders from a ranking officer with far superior qualification. Blame the Brits as they were not generous enough to educate its subjects. He naturally protested and he was accused of and charged with mutiny. Guess who appointed the new ranking officer in the first place, prosecuted Keyd and found him guilty! This info are readily available but folks like u take this crap at face value...why?

 

crap kulahaa, sxb i have never heard about some one who would ever attempt a coup on behalf of some one else. As for the rest of what you mentioned you are basically offcourse my friend "get agrip on ur self" :

 

Originally posted by Baashi:

 

Get a grip sxb! It ain’t happening and other Somali are not the ones holding SL back. Get many many more in-laws like Drysdale , Iqbal n other opportunistic lobbyist and have them do a better job @ offices that matter .

you sound like odey yar oo pissed off ah

[Baashi]

^ Odey yar oo pissed off. Well what ever makes ur day ADNAAN. Here on SOL we challenge folks to put up or shut up. Facts are needed not opinions of other passionate secessionists sxb. History is not a revised propoganda write up. History is what had actually taken place.

 

Time to get the facts straight ADNAAN. First thing first, I hope you understand the difference between integration (after the fact) and union. Second, I also hope you understand the relevance of the so called British magistrate operating in sovereign jurisdiction. Now let’s get down to it.

 

The much hyped Keyd. Here is the context in which the rebellion took place. Link is provided.

 

â€Dissatisfaction at the distribution of power among the clan families and between the two regions boiled over in December 1961, when a group of British-trained junior army officers in the north rebelled in reaction to the posting of higher ranking southern officers (who had been trained by the Italians for police duties) to command their units. The ringleaders urged a separation of north and south. Northern noncommissioned officers arrested the rebels, but discontent in the north persisted.â€

 

Source:

Chapter: From Independence to Revolution

Section: Problems of National Integration.

Country study: Somalia. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

 

Clearly this not so well planned rebellion outburst has nothing to do with secession (or coup for that matter) and everything to do with what is known in the west “office politikingâ€. Who is in charge and who is not makes some people jealous and in some cases angry. Keyd was an angry junior officer who didn’t have what it takes to be senior officer. Why? Next quote can shed some light on this issue.

 

“Meanwhile, in British Somaliland the civilian colonial administration attempted to expand educational opportunities in the protectorate. The number of Somalis qualifying for administrative posts remained negligible, however. The protectorate had experienced little economic or infrastructural development apart from the digging of more bore wells and the establishment of agricultural and veterinary services to benefit animal and plant husbandry. Comprehensive geological surveys failed to uncover exploitable mineral resources.â€

 

Source:

Chapter: Imperial partition.

Section: Trusteeship and Protectorate: The Road to Independence.

Country study: Somalia. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

 

Check it out

[LANDER]

Originally posted by ADNAAN:

baashe which part of the article are you refering to, wish to ellaborate.

I don't think he's reffering to any of it, it's instinctive for some to lament as soon as the old qacaan ideology ingrained in their membrains is challenged with cold hard facts. As the french say,On n'apprend pas à un vieux singe à faire des grimaces (roughly translates into: Can't teach an old dog new tricks). Anyway I was wondering if anybody had access to an online ressource for this work cited (me owe lots of fines at the Uni libraries) :

3.Somaliland Protectorate Constitutional Conference, London, May, 1960

[Baashi]

Clap clap for the french fluency Clannish groupthink ideology have no legs to stand. There are no hard facts in this propaganda he is copy-pasting on SOL forum.

 

Hate me What else can u do...u don't have facts to back up with this revised history of urs. Put up or shut up as the popular clique goes.

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Clap clap for the french fluency

Clannish groupthink ideology have no legs to stand. There are no hard facts in this propaganda he is copy-pasting on SOL forum.

 

Hate me

What else can u do...u don't have facts to back up with this revised history of urs. Put up or shut up as the popular clique goes.

^ I think you mean't to say "cliché" odayga. But anyway it is not I who presented the facts but the author, so if your saying otherwise it is upon you to present facts prooving to the contrary is it not?

[Baashi]

Thanks for the correction gabanka (cliche it is indeed) Yes. Check the reference I provided and let me know if that suffices or not.

[LANDER]

I won't make any more assumptions where you are concerned, but I still wonder if you avoid the real issues purposely or not. Look at the passages highlighted by Adnaan they deal with the legal implications of the ruling on that case, do you not see the bigger picture? Why focus on junior officer X,Y, Z’s intentions and qualifications when the subject at hand deals with constitutional ramifications of the said case. If you are bringing “facts†let them pertain to the relevant matters, and let them show flaws in the author’s conclusions. If not, why waste your time?

 

 

Originally posted by ADNAAN:“In the administration of the criminal justice on matters of high treason, the oath of allegiance is paramount in the case of military officers, which ascertains the citizenship of the accused. As of today, the constitution of the Somali republic has no jurisdictional validity beyond the boundaries of the former Italian colony [Eek!] . Without first establishing a proper legal entity incorporating a union of the two former colonies, the current constitution of the Somali republic is not applicable to any citizen of the former British colony.

On the matter of the documents or instruments presented to the court, the Indian penal code in fact carries the death penalty. However, it is only valid within the territory of the former British colony. It is not part of the criminal justice system of the Somali republic.

The accused never made an oath of allegiance to a nation called Somali republic. Therefore, they are not citizens of the Somali republic [Eek!] . Consequently, they are cleared of all criminal charges- including that of high treason.â€

[ADNAAN]

Originally posted by Baashi:

^

Time to get the facts straight ADNAAN. First thing first, I hope you understand the difference between integration (after the fact) and union. Second, I also hope you understand the relevance of the so called British magistrate operating in sovereign jurisdiction. Now let’s get down to it.

 

The much hyped Keyd. Here is

 

see you made a wish that i understand the difference b/w da union and integration, and you quicly proceeded on to bashing keyd. to be honest the writer of the article didn't even mention his name. Baashi lets get real, the ball is in your court so explain the difference and explain to us the validity of the so called act of union. i hope u will be more specific in your reply and stop beating about the bush,again may i challenge you to get your head round the crux of the matter.

 

 

For your info this whole legality issue is new to me,i don't copy n paste 4 no reason.

[Baashi]

^I know

 

Boys don’t turn the table on me

 

ADNAAN you brought Keyd by urself . The proceeding in which the whole article is deriving its premise is based on the rebellion and the verdict in and of itself is what the author is basing on his conclusion. Capisci?

 

LANDER won’t make any more assumptions where I’m concerned! Ameen to that. That’s a progress.

 

Now there are no legal ramifications in this as far as the Act of Union is concerned. You know that. For starters Somalia has been a member of international community for 45+ years and it’s legal standing as a state have never been questioned. Nevertheless, if this piece impressed you that much (probably it fits in ur preconceived notion) think of it this way. This is a trail. The trail took place when the Somalia (6 months old) had many conflicting judicial problems (two different colonial systems) and the country retained its former masters to help sort the mess out. What you have is an Indian defense lawyer hired from Mombasa, Italian adviser acting as a prosecutor, and British judge. All foreigners!!! Furthermore, the case was not about the constitutional validity of the union. Now how does that raise a legal implication after 45+ years?

 

The Act of Union sealed the fate of the former British Somaliland as we know it. The whole world accepted it. I can understand if someone argues that the Northern interest had not been well advocated or well represented in the run up negotiation prior to the actual union. I can also understand if one says that the Northern representatives were outplayed or outsmarted by their Southern counterparts. I can give that kinda talk to a sympathetic ear! :cool: However, anyone who doesn’t understand the 1961 referendum in which the majority of Somalis said YES to the Act (part of the constitution) needs help in legal dept.

 

Yaa la caroon akhyaarta...waa sheeko waxaan meesha ku heynaa e.

[wind.talker]

I think I've finally nailed down the difference between pro-secession elements and the rest of Somaaliwayn. It is this simple:

 

Pro-secession peoples' history begun with the British arrival on Somali soil

 

Soomaaliwayn's history begun centuries before any White man ever set foot on the continent of Africa

 

How's that for a "historical fact?"

 

I suggest we keep the debate current, lively and realistic. ADNAAN, try going to Laascaanood and distributing this article to the locals. I'd rather read an article about the REACTION of Laascaanood natives (as an example) to this article instead of the article itself (because it spends too much time in the hypothetical realm).

 

P.S. Why such desperation of late from the pro-secession camp? Perhaps, its best to discuss irrelevant matters instead of urgent ones that need to be addressed, i.e. the rising conflict in parliament between pro-UDUB and the anti-UDUB camps. Are Riyaale's days really numbered?

[SOO MAAL]

In fact there was a union between the north and south Somalia, and the two parliaments peacefully merged, only one tribal faction snm lying about the union. BUT in reality there was no union absolutely between the communities/clans/regions of so-called former British Somaliland (now part of Somalia).

[Jamster]

The corpus of the writing above is concocted from thin air. It has no legal legs to stand on as it were. It seems rationality had taken flight from the author; or perhaps is utterly hoodwinked by superior authority; or even worst blinded by emotional sentiment.

 

Baashi,

 

Yes, the British were not so generous as the Italians; but what irked Mr Keyd and et all were what they saw as lack of fairness. Their immediate superiors were men who were as educated as them-- note keyd was educated at Elite military academy Sandhurst. It was Military jealousy that invoked those folks; nothing to do with the whole tribe being sidelined;; Jamal Yare was the man who was the principal Prosecutor Witness.

[Gabbal]

Why would people even bother to comment about the naked revisions individuals are so visibly doing the early history of the Somali Republic? Anybody brings up the "State of Union" BS then I bring out my "Mohamed Ibrahiim Igaal (ilaahay ha u naxariisto} didn't have any problems refusing the Prime Ministerial position" card.

 

Wax kala la imaada baynu nidi.