Article/opinion:-

Since, the inauguration of the new committee members of the Supreme Court in Somaliland in January 2015 especially the selection of the chief justice, the Somaliland people faithfully and sincerely welcomed with open hands and minds expecting that the new structure would promote justice and faire for everyone in Somaliland. Thousands of Somaliland people intentionally supported the new structure introduced as it was honourable legacy by the current president. However as LJ Acton argued that “Government rules the present. Literature rules the future.” For the last two constitutional cases, many people doubted the future of the Supreme Court, however, the court failed to justify clearly its judgment of the recent cases concerning constitutional law.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality” Desmond Tutu.
At the first glance, the chief justice of the Supreme Court directly reformed the structure, the occupation and the procedures of national courts, from Appellant courts to lower district courts reshaping their institutional structure completely. All human beings need not independent and impartial judiciary system. According to LJ Hewart once argued that Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, This was great accomplishment to all citizens of Somaliland however, every success has benefits and weaknesses, for instance, academics and lawyers argue that “justice delayed is justice denied” however the new scheme emerged in Somaliland, delaying any case is dramatically reduced, and the chief justice proposed procedures that cases should be dealt with and completed as soon as possible. Thus these steps improve public confidence follow towards justices and faire.
In general, the court and the arbitration centre is widely different in definition, propose, Judgment, procedures and determination. Court is a litigation process, a case (called suit or lawsuit) is brought before a court of law suitably empowered (having the jurisdiction) to hear the case, by the parties involved (the litigants) for resolution (the judgment). In other words court –-result of the jurisdictional powers of a State’s monopoly of coercion and jurisdiction (sovereignty), whereas the state appointed judge makes final binding decision. Its main features include: Dispute settlement method applied in absence of other arrangements, this means when parties submit their case to litigation, they are expecting a lasting solution and enforcement about their dispute.

However Dispute settlement procedures, whereas individual, who have been vested with jurisdictional powers deriving from a State’s monopoly of coercion and jurisdiction or parties will, makes final decision which is binding upon parties.
On the other hand, Arbitration Centre is a dispute settlement mechanism, which is consensual, private procedure, and it has final and binding determination of the rights and obligations of the parties. The settling of disputes (especially labour disputes) between two parties by an impartial third party, whose decision the contending parties agree to accept. Arbitration is often used to resolve conflict diplomatically to prevent a more serious confrontation.
The role of the Supreme Court plays an important role creating Somaliland law, as we are in common law system; not only parliament makes the law, but also the supreme court and the appellant court, it is the highest court in the land, and its judgment binding all other lower courts due to the judicial precedent principle.

Thus its decision must be based on the sources of national law, including; Islamic Sharia law, acts of the parliament. When determining a case either civil law or criminal law, the court has to follow procedures and rules for examples when drafting its final determination of the case, it must have clear meaning, clear analysis of its reasoning judgment based on laws but the court is not expected to amalgamate mediation principles and legislations, it has to follow all the drafted acts, local orders. All though, I do not want to condemn the decision of the supreme court , however, it is my intention to critically analysis and comment each case decided either by the appellant court or the supreme court so as to improve for the future.
Academics and practitioners argue that an effective judiciary guarantees fairness in legal processes. It’s a powerful weapon against corruption. But people’s experiences in court are often far from fair. In some countries, most people in contact with the courts face demands for bribes. Their payments total staggering amounts. Court efficiency is crucial. A backlog of cases creates opportunities for demanding bribes to fast-track a case. Court personnel can be paid to slow down or speed up a trial, or dismiss a complaint. Judges can also bribe or be bribed, or they can suffer pressure from above. If politicians abuse their power, they can influence decisions and distort appointment processes. However in this paper, we are not arguing the Supreme Court judges in Somaliland are bribed or corrupted but assessing their procedures
Judges can also bribe or be bribed, or they can suffer pressure from above. If politicians abuse their power, they can influence decisions and distort appointment processes.
Against this backdrop, people are often unaware of their rights. Or worse still, countless negative experiences can simply resign them to their fate before a corrupt court.
An effective judiciary guarantees fairness in legal processes. It’s a powerful weapon against corruption. But people’s experiences in court are often far from fair. In some countries, most people in contact with the courts face demands for bribes. Their payments total staggering amounts. Court efficiency is crucial. A backlog of cases creates opportunities for demanding bribes to fast-track a case. Court personnel can be paid to slow down or speed up a trial, or dismiss a complaint.
Judges can also bribe or be bribed, or they can suffer pressure from above. If politicians abuse their power, they can influence decisions and distort appointment processes.
Against this backdrop, people are often unaware of their rights. Or worse still, countless negative experiences can simply resign them to their fate before a corrupt court
According to the Somaliland Constitution, Article 8: Equality of Citizens provides that All citizens of Somaliland shall enjoy equal rights and obligations before the law, and shall not be accorded precedence on grounds of colour, clan, birth, language, gender, property, status, opinion etc. thus, the recent case relating to constitutional and administrative law determined on 25th 09th 2016 2016 between the two disputed parties of the UCID party appears the court failed to resolve the case on the merit of the Judiciary principles rather created further confusion.
The judgment cursorily was based on neither arbitration nor litigation due to its amalgamation and confusion. All thought, the court attempted to employ both mediation and litigation principles thus this has resulted that both parties did not comprehend the intention of the court and therefore has created new conflict of interest of disagreeing further.

For example the paragraph 5, the court ordered both parties to hold extra-ordinary conference within 60 days as to approve the Political agreements between the sides however the court did not explicitly express the duties of the extra-ordinary conference as proved in Article 14 section 3 of the UCID part charter states that conference approves amendments of the constitution, party manifest, leadership management, and the decisions submitted and already approved by the congress and executives of the party. Here in this case, the UCID Congress have already approved the Political agreements of both sides therefore, the extra-ordinary conference has not any other options except to approve this Political agreement.
On the other point, the court ordered to have 10 committee members of each side to coordinate the extra-ordinary conference however such decision is contrary to the party’s constitution of article 22 paragraphs 6 that states the party chairman is responsible to form a coordination committee. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton However the court negligently ignored some of the articles of the UCID party’s charter, for instance Article 16, section 10 that provides the power of the congress in the party to select the presidential candidates directly, thus, in that respect, the court did not take in to account for the weights of the congress resolution rather it legalizes the political agreement principles.
In Conclusion, litigation and Arbitration is not comparable due to the procedures and legal system, parties file cases to the court in order to receive final judgement with clear meaning of the determination, while other parties file their dispute to arbitration or mediation before the court to have their dispute resolved diplomatically. The court must have analytical analysis far beyond the parties’ intention. For example where parties failed to solve their disputes amicably or other forms arraignments, such as the two parties of the UCID Party. The court would have to make strict judgment and clear rules to follow otherwise, parties with the dispute will not be able to solve their conflict of interest forever.
The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did. This should be outlined point by point in numbered sentences or paragraphs. In this case Somaliland Supreme Court consist of eleven judges, thus each judge is required to submit his/her own reasoning, or rational chain of argument. Separate Opinions, both concurring and dissenting opinions should be subjected to the same depth of analysis to bring out the major points of Political agreement or political agreement with the majority opinion. Where a panel of eleven judges took part to hear a constitutional case, each honourable judge must submit his/her reasoning or rational judgment, the dissenting argument must be heard.

Hassan Ahmed
LLB, LLM (Master of LAW)
London UK
Hassan.caafi@gmail.com

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Cabays Media. However; all articles and diverse opinions are welcome by Cabays Media. Any article or opinions can be send at editor@cabays.com 

Follow