State Minister for Foreign Affairs, MP Ali Omar Mohamed, has called on Somalia’s parliament to expedite and endorse a new regional agreement with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). But legal experts are sounding the alarm, warning that the deal, if passed without conditions, could compromise Somalia’s territorial integrity, maritime rights, and control over its own resources.
The IGAD 2021–2025 regional strategy promotes deeper economic and security integration among member states. While the initiative aims to foster cooperation in areas like infrastructure, trade, and environmental management, it contains vague language about “shared resources” and “transboundary development” that analysts say could be misused by neighboring countries.
One of the most immediate concerns is how the agreement could be interpreted by Ethiopia, which has long sought access to the sea. Ethiopia lost its coastline after Eritrea gained independence in the early 1990s, and ever since, it has relied on foreign ports for trade. Somalia’s legal analysis warns that by signing this IGAD deal, Somalia may unintentionally offer Ethiopia a legal path to demand access to Somali ports — not as a partner, but as a right under regional cooperation frameworks.
Ethiopia’s desperation for sea access is growing. Its 2024 Memorandum of Understanding with Somaliland, which sought port access in exchange for diplomatic recognition, was strongly condemned by Somalia and rejected as a violation of Somali sovereignty. Yet under IGAD’s new integration framework, Ethiopia may not need Somaliland or Somalia’s full consent if the deal is ratified without clear safeguards.
The situation with Kenya is even more concerning for many Somalis. In 2021, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Somalia in the maritime dispute with Kenya, awarding a large portion of offshore territory to Somalia. Kenya rejected the ruling and has since insisted on bilateral negotiation. Now, with IGAD promoting joint management of cross-border resources, legal experts worry Kenya could use the regional framework to bypass the ICJ ruling and claim a stake in Somali offshore oil and gas reserves.
A senior constitutional lawyer in Mogadishu said the danger lies in the vague terms of the agreement. “It doesn’t define what ‘shared resources’ mean. If this becomes law, Kenya could argue that oil off the Somali coast is part of our shared regional wealth,” he said. “That would be a serious betrayal of the court ruling Somalia worked so hard to win.”
Security is another area where Somalia could lose control. The IGAD framework supports regional peace and security efforts but allows member states to act collectively, even without full consent from the country affected. Somalia could find itself the target of military or intelligence operations led by Ethiopia or Kenya under the justification of regional security without its approval.
The report warns that Somalia could legally be trapped by this deal unless it demands changes before signing. IGAD decision-making does not require unanimity. That means if Somalia is absent or overruled, the agreement can still pass, and Somalia would be expected to comply.
“Somalia must not sign this agreement in its current form,” said the legal analyst who reviewed the IGAD strategy. “We need strong, written reservations that protect our territorial waters, land, and political sovereignty. Without that, this agreement could do more harm than good.”
The analyst recommended specific legal steps Somalia should take, including invoking its right under international law to exclude sensitive areas from regional cooperation. Somalia should demand opt-out clauses and retain full veto power over any regional decision affecting its security or resources.
While integration and cooperation can bring long-term benefits, experts caution that they should not come at the expense of national independence. The IGAD agreement, as currently drafted, lacks the legal precision needed to prevent overreach by more powerful neighbors.
Somali lawmakers now face a difficult decision. Supporting the agreement may strengthen ties with regional partners, but it also carries significant risks if the country’s rights are not clearly protected. The legal analysis warns that once Somalia signs, it may be difficult to withdraw or amend the deal.
The stakes are high. With Ethiopia seeking sea access and Kenya potentially aiming to reassert claims over maritime resources, the IGAD deal could become a legal tool used against Somalia in the future.
“It’s not about rejecting cooperation,” said a senior policy advisor. “It’s about protecting the foundation of our state our land, our sea, and our authority. If we don’t stand firm now, we may not be able to later.”
As Parliament prepares to debate the agreement, the public and political leaders are being urged to read the fine print carefully. What appears to be a regional partnership may, without safeguards, become a path to foreign control.