BAIDOA, Somalia — The political and security crisis unfolding in Somalia’s South West State is increasingly being fought through one of the most consequential accusations in the country: association with Al-Shabaab. What began as a struggle over political authority in Baidoa now carries the risk of becoming something more dangerous.
Rival camps are accusing one another of cooperating with the al-Qaida-linked militant group, deploying the language of counterterrorism not only against a common enemy but against domestic political opponents. The allegations are serious. But the available information does not independently establish all of the claims being made by either side. That uncertainty is at the centre of the crisis.
In a country where Al-Shabaab has carried out years of assassinations, bombings and armed attacks, an accusation of association with the group is not merely political rhetoric. It can shape military operations, justify arrests, influence public opinion and determine who is treated as a political rival and who is treated as a security threat. The danger in Baidoa is that the distinction between those categories is becoming increasingly blurred.
The politics of the Al-Shabaab accusation
The administration currently controlling South West State, led by Sheikh Aadan Mohamed Nur, known as Aadan Madoobe, has accused forces loyal to the former regional president, Abdiaziz Laftagareen, of establishing links with Al-Shabaab. The accusation followed repeated attempts by forces aligned with Mr. Laftagareen to enter or attack Baidoa after his removal from power.
During the most recent attack, the Aadan Madoobe administration and Somalia’s federal government said that the assault involved more than 10 explosions, including suicide attacks attributed to Al-Shabaab. Supporters of the current administration also circulated claims that the Laftagareen camp had transferred five people to Al-Shabaab for preparation as suicide attackers. Those are grave allegations. But they have not been independently verified.
Mr. Laftagareen and his supporters, meanwhile, have made accusations that follow a similar logic. When federal forces moved toward Baidoa through areas containing villages previously controlled by Al-Shabaab, the Laftagareen administration alleged that the government forces had passed through under a financial arrangement involving the militant group before reaching Buur Hakaba. Here, too, the available information does not independently establish the allegation. The result is a striking political symmetry.
One camp points to its opponent’s movement through or contact with areas associated with Al-Shabaab and presents that as evidence of cooperation. The other points to armed attacks occurring alongside or involving suspected militants and reaches the same conclusion. In both cases, the accusation is potentially more powerful than the evidence that has been made publicly available. And that may be the central counterterrorism problem facing Baidoa.
When an accusation becomes a weapon
Counterterrorism depends heavily on classification. Governments must determine who is a civilian, who is an insurgent, who is a supporter, who is a former member and who remains an active participant in an armed organisation. Those distinctions are never simple in a long conflict. But they become even more difficult when political rivals begin using the same classifications against one another.
A political opponent can be transformed, rhetorically, into a security threat. An armed rival can be described not simply as a militia or opposition force but as an extension of a terrorist organisation. A movement through an area controlled by militants can be portrayed as evidence of cooperation. A former member of an armed group can be treated as permanently associated with that group, regardless of when or how that relationship ended.
The information emerging from South West State illustrates all of these dangers. Neither political camp appears immune from the logic. Both have used allegations involving Al-Shabaab against their opponents. Both have operated in an environment where armed actors, former militants, government forces and political networks overlap. And both appear to understand the political power of the accusation.
In Somalia, to accuse an opponent of association with Al-Shabaab is not simply to question that person’s politics. It is to place that person, potentially, on the other side of the country’s most important security divide.
The problem of former militants
The complexity becomes clearer in the cases of officials whose past includes membership in or defection from Al-Shabaab. Ibrahim Mohamed Nur, known as Kalaay, is the current mayor of Baidoa. Under the Laftagareen administration, he served as the Commissioner Awdiinle village, approximately 30 kilometres from Baidoa. According to sources spoke to Baaritaan, Kalaay previously defected from Al-Shabaab.
After Laftagareen was removed from power, Kalaay aligned himself politically with the former president and was among forces positioned outside Baidoa. Sources added that, during that period, Kalaay travelled to an area controlled by Al-Shabaab and paid a levy. The sources noted he was later informed that the payment would become recurring, objected to that arrangement and returned to Baidoa, where he was subsequently appointed mayor.
The same complexity surrounds Mohamed Hassan Adan, known as Sandheere, the commander of South West State’s Birmad forces. Sandheere is also a former Al-Shabaab member. During Laftagareen tanture, he previously served as commander of South West State’s Darawish forces in Buur Hakaba, an area that became central to the military campaign that removed Laftagareen from power.
Sandheere has now become politically estranged from the current Aadan Madoobe administration and returned to Buur Hakaba, according to the information provided. His possible departure from the administration’s camp illustrates another feature of the crisis: political and military loyalties remain fluid. In such an environment, past affiliation can become a permanent political weapon.
The question is no longer simply whether someone was once associated with Al-Shabaab. The question is who has the authority to determine when that association ended — and what evidence is required to establish that it continues.
A conflict becoming harder to contain
The immediate danger is that accusations once used as political rhetoric could begin to shape security decisions. In Baidoa, federal and regional forces have continued to reinforce positions, while Laftagareen-aligned forces have remained active outside the city; recent reports have described additional troop movements and fears of renewed fighting.
Aadan Madoobe returned to Baidoa this week and visited frontline positions as his administration sought to consolidate control over the city. His government has also called for operations against both Laftagareen-aligned fighters and Al-Shabaab, further blurring the distinction between a political confrontation and the country’s separate counterinsurgency campaign.
Turkey’s military role adds another layer of sensitivity. Somalia has deepened defence cooperation with Ankara, while reports have emerged of Turkish aircraft operating around Baidoa; however, claims that Turkish F-16s are being used on behalf of one political faction remain disputed and should not be presented as established without independent confirmation. Earlier reporting has also recorded allegations by South West officials concerning Turkish military support and aircraft.
Road to talks: The search for a political exit
For residents, the political struggle has already carried a humanitarian cost. Baidoa hosts hundreds of thousands of people displaced by conflict and hunger, and Reuters reported that the August fighting occurred in a city already facing severe humanitarian pressures, including alarming child malnutrition. More recent reports indicate that some residents have continued leaving parts of the city amid fears of renewed clashes.
Somalia’s recent history suggests that military victories rarely settle disputes over federal authority for long. Former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has already called for restraint and negotiations following the Baidoa fighting, warning that the confrontation could deepen the country’s political divisions.
Sources says President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has recently met former parliamentary speaker Mohamed Mursal and lawmaker Aadan Saransoor as part of efforts to open a channel to Laftagareen, but that there has been little visible progress. With the rival camps separated by deep mistrust and armed forces now positioned around Baidoa, the central question is whether political negotiations can move faster than the security escalation.
What began as a dispute over who should govern South West State is therefore becoming a test of Somalia’s federal system: whether political competition can remain within constitutional institutions, or whether accusations of terrorism and the mobilization of armed forces will turn a political contest into a conflict that is much harder to reverse.
