Puntland’s leaders should treat the exhaustion of patience with Mogadishu as a demand for a different political settlement. The argument for moving on is strongest when it rests on consent, functioning institutions and a credible programme, rather than declarations alone. Puntland can pursue greater autonomy gradually or seek a negotiated rupture more abruptly. Either route requires its leadership and people to move together through a decision that citizens can understand, debate and authorize.
Puntland’s institutions predate the present federal framework. A community conference established the Puntland State of Somalia in 1998, while Somalia’s transition to its current federal institutions concluded in 2012. The constitutional history recorded by UNEP also identifies an essential qualification: Puntland’s founding project envisaged participation in a federal Somalia. Its claim to institutional continuity therefore supports a demand for an agreed partnership. History gives that demand weight; citizens must determine whether the partnership still serves them.
That distinction explains why withdrawal from cooperation can develop into a deeper constitutional argument. In March 2024, Puntland’s cabinet rejected recognition of federal institutions pending an agreed constitutional settlement and referendum. Reuters reported the decision as conditional. It established a refusal to accept unilateral constitutional change, rather than an internationally recognized separation. The political question is whether continued conditional participation offers a workable route back to consent or simply prolongs an arrangement that its participants cannot agree to implement.
Deni’s October 31 call for Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to resign, reported from his Puntland TV interview, illustrates the leadership’s confrontation with the Mogadishu government. The subsequent court-presidency dispute deepens the institutional problem: competing authorities dispute the terms and timetable of political succession. A partnership cannot command durable confidence when its participants disagree over the authority that sets its basic rules.
PUNT NEWS’s publisher reports a preliminary survey figure of 87.24% supporting separation or confederation combined. The sampling method, respondent count, fieldwork dates and underlying responses have not been provided for verification. The figure consequently cannot establish a population-wide mandate or support for either option separately. It should prompt a transparent consultation, with clearly separated constitutional choices, rather than substitute for one. A credible mandate must also hear people who oppose changing Puntland’s relationship with Somalia.
Separation and confederation lead towards different destinations. Separation would pursue a distinct sovereign state and would require negotiations over recognition, boundaries, assets, citizenship and obligations. A confederal arrangement would instead require agreement on which powers its participants retain and which functions they share. Neither emerges automatically from refusing a meeting or rejecting a constitutional amendment. Puntland should publish the alternatives in language that households, businesses and communities can evaluate, including the likely costs and the institutions needed to manage them.
A gradual course could consolidate accountable local administration, strengthen revenue collection, clarify security command and negotiate practical arrangements with neighbouring authorities. An abrupt course would compress those decisions into a shorter and riskier transition. The attraction of speed is understandable when negotiations appear exhausted. Its dangers arise when political announcements outrun arrangements for salaries, trade, banking, education and civilian protection. Leaders should demonstrate how these functions would continue before asking citizens to accept the uncertainties of a changed political status.
Institutional independence also demands discipline within Puntland. Resistance to Mogadishu cannot excuse weak oversight in Garowe, irregular public payments or restrictions on political competition. A government seeking greater authority should accept stronger scrutiny from its legislature, auditors, courts and citizens. Its accounts should distinguish budget promises from money received and services delivered. Security personnel should know their lawful command, while civilians should have accessible ways to challenge abuse. These safeguards would make autonomy tangible in daily life.
The economic test is equally practical. Families need reliable transfers, traders need predictable rules, and vulnerable households need continuity of assistance. A constitutional transition should preserve lawful financial access and avoid turning payment systems into instruments of political punishment. Commercial confidence depends on enforceable agreements and a government capable of honouring them. An orderly settlement should therefore protect people whose livelihoods cross political boundaries, including those who disagree with the leadership’s preferred constitutional destination.
Moving together also requires restraint in language. Leaders cannot equate criticism with disloyalty or claim that every resident supports their preferred route. Puntland’s strongest bargaining position would come from a publicly documented, inclusive decision, supported by institutions capable of carrying it out. A transparent process would turn frustration into authority that survives changes of leadership and can sustain negotiations with Somalia’s other communities.
Puntland should move beyond indefinite waiting by presenting a public timetable for consultation, institutional preparation and negotiation. Unity should describe the legitimacy of that process, not compulsory agreement with its outcome. The strongest case for moving on is that citizens deserve a relationship they have chosen and institutions that answer to them. Leadership earns its mandate by making that choice possible.