Hargeisa (SLpost)- The role of the police in any democratic society extends beyond maintaining public order and security. Law enforcement institutions are also expected to serve the public impartially, regardless of political affiliation, and to exercise their powers within the limits established by law.
Somalilandpost News has prepared this analysis in response to a series of interconnected developments that have generated significant public attention and debate across Somaliland. The analysis seeks to examine the circumstances surrounding the reported CID summons, the role and mandate of the Criminal Investigation Department, and the broader questions being raised about political criticism, freedom of expression, and the exercise of law-enforcement powers. Rather than reaching a predetermined conclusion, the analysis aims to place the developments within a broader institutional and legal context and reflect the questions and concerns emerging from the public debate.
In Somaliland, recent reports that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Police has summoned opposition figures and individuals who have criticised government institutions have renewed debate over where the line should be drawn between legitimate criminal investigations and the protection of freedom of expression.
The debate intensified following reports that Abdirashid Aided, spokesperson for the KAAH political party, was summoned by the CID after criticising the management of Hargeisa Group Hospital over the death of a woman who had recently given birth and whose body was reportedly found inside the hospital premises, in circumstances that have generated public concern.
According to reports circulating about it, Aided declined to comply with the summons, questioning the legal basis for the CID’s request and arguing that the department was not a court.
The incident has since generated competing interpretations. Some have viewed the summons as an attempt to intimidate political figures and restrict criticism of government institutions. Others may argue that law-enforcement authorities have a legitimate interest in questioning individuals who may possess information relevant to an investigation.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether the CID has summoned a politician, but why the summons was issued, what legal authority supports it, and whether it is connected to a genuine investigation.
Where Does the CID’s Authority Begin and End?
The Criminal Investigation Department is a law-enforcement body responsible for investigating suspected criminal activity, gathering information and evidence, and supporting the broader criminal-justice process.
A summons or request for questioning does not, by itself, establish that the person being questioned has committed a crime or has been formally charged.
There may be legitimate circumstances in which investigators need to interview a political figure, journalist, public official or ordinary citizen because that person possesses information relevant to an investigation.
The important question is whether there is a clear and lawful connection between the individual being summoned and the matter under investigation.
If a person is called because investigators require information about a specific incident, the summons may have a legitimate investigative purpose. If, however, the primary basis for the summons is simply criticism directed at a government institution, questions naturally arise about the legal grounds for such action and whether law-enforcement powers are being used in a manner that could discourage legitimate political expression.
Freedom of Expression and Criticism of Government Institutions
Political opposition, journalists, civil society actors and members of the public play an important role in scrutinising government institutions.
Criticism concerning healthcare, public administration, security, corruption, public services or the performance of government officials is an essential part of public debate, particularly when the issue concerns an incident affecting members of the public.
That does not mean every form of speech is automatically protected from legal consequences. Where conduct crosses a lawful threshold—for example, through credible threats, incitement to violence or another recognised criminal offence—competent authorities may have grounds to intervene in accordance with the law.
The distinction is therefore important: political criticism should not automatically be treated as evidence of criminal conduct.
Where authorities believe that a statement may constitute an offence, the appropriate course is to identify the specific legal basis and allow the relevant investigative and judicial processes to establish whether an offence has occurred.
Is the Current Summons Different From Those of Previous Governments?
Summoning politicians and other individuals for questioning by the CID is not a new phenomenon in Somaliland.
Previous administrations have also summoned opposition figures, political party members and other individuals for questioning. In some cases, those summoned attended the CID, answered questions and were subsequently released.
The current debate, therefore, should not be reduced to the fact that a political figure has been summoned.
The more important questions concern the purpose of the summons, its legal foundation, the circumstances surrounding it and the manner in which the authority was exercised.
A summons connected to a genuine criminal investigation is fundamentally different from one that appears to be based solely on an individual’s political position or criticism of the government.
This distinction is critical for maintaining public confidence in law-enforcement institutions.
Legal Perspective: Is a CID Summons the Same as a Criminal Charge?
A summons for questioning should not automatically be interpreted as a criminal charge.
Law-enforcement authorities may need to interview individuals who are witnesses, sources of information, complainants, and persons of interest or potential suspects. The fact that someone is questioned does not, in itself, establish guilt.
At the same time, individuals have legitimate grounds to ask why they are being summoned, what matter is under investigation and under which legal authority they are being questioned.
The criminal-justice system also requires a distinction between investigation and adjudication. Investigative authorities gather information and evidence, while the courts determine criminal responsibility where a case proceeds to prosecution.
For that reason, the appropriate question is not whether the CID can ever summon a political figure. Rather, it is whether each summons is supported by a lawful investigative purpose and whether the powers involved are being exercised proportionately and impartially.
The Risk to Public Trust
Repeated reports of opposition politicians or government critics being summoned by security institutions can create public concern even where individual summonses may have a legitimate legal basis.
Public confidence is an essential component of effective policing. Security institutions depend on citizens’ willingness to cooperate with investigations, report crimes and provide information.
That confidence can be weakened when the public begins to perceive law-enforcement bodies as instruments of political pressure rather than impartial institutions operating under the law.
For the government, maintaining a clear separation between political competition and law enforcement is therefore not merely a matter of protecting the opposition. It is also a matter of protecting the credibility and institutional independence of the state itself.
The Hargeisa General Hospital Incident
The incident that reportedly preceded Aided’s summons raises a separate and equally important question: what happened at Hargeisa Group Hospital, and has the matter been properly investigated?
The reported death of a woman who had recently given birth, followed by the discovery of her body within the hospital premises, is a matter of serious public concern.
The priority should be establishing the facts surrounding the death, including the circumstances in which it occurred, whether appropriate medical and security procedures were followed, and whether any negligence or administrative failure contributed to the incident.
If allegations of negligence or institutional failure have been made, the appropriate response should be a transparent and credible investigation capable of establishing the facts and determining responsibility where wrongdoing is found.
Political criticism arising from such an incident is separate from the investigation into the incident itself.
The public therefore has a legitimate interest in knowing not only whether a politician was summoned, but also whether the underlying incident has been thoroughly investigated and whether the findings have been made available.
The Broader Institutional Question
The controversy ultimately raises a broader question about the relationship between security institutions, political accountability and freedom of expression in Somaliland.
A government requires effective security institutions capable of investigating crime and maintaining public order. At the same time, those institutions must operate within the law and remain sufficiently independent to prevent their powers from becoming instruments of political competition.
Likewise, opposition politicians and members of the public have a responsibility to exercise their freedom of expression responsibly and within the law.
The two principles are not inherently incompatible.
Strong security institutions and strong civil liberties can coexist when both are protected by clear laws, institutional accountability and impartial enforcement.
Conclusion
The reported CID summons involving KAAH spokesperson Abdirashid Aided should therefore be assessed carefully and on the basis of facts rather than political assumptions.
The summons itself does not necessarily prove political intimidation. At the same time, questions surrounding its legal basis and purpose should not be dismissed, particularly when the person involved had been publicly criticising a government institution.
The authorities should be able to explain, where appropriate and without compromising legitimate investigations, the legal grounds for actions taken by law-enforcement bodies.
The government also has a responsibility to ensure that security institutions are not perceived or used as instruments for suppressing legitimate political criticism.
For Somaliland, the long-term issue extends beyond one individual or one summons. It concerns the credibility of the country’s institutions.
The public needs security institutions that are strong enough to enforce the law, but restrained enough to respect lawful political expression. It needs government institutions capable of defending themselves through facts and accountability rather than intimidation. And it needs a justice system in which criminal responsibility is established through lawful investigation and due process—not through political accusation.
The central question, therefore, remains: Was the CID summons based on a clear and legitimate investigative purpose, and how can Somaliland ensure that law-enforcement powers are never used to silence legitimate criticism of those in power?
The answer will matter not only to the individuals involved in this case, but also to public confidence in Somaliland’s security institutions and its wider justice system.
By Somalilandpost News Editorial
