By: Abdirahman Abdishakur Warsame
The arrival of Çağrı Bey in Mogadishu marks a historic and consequential moment. For Somalia, it signals the opening of a new chapter in the development of offshore energy resources. For Turkey, it represents a significant step in extending its energy ambitions beyond its borders.
This moment carries both opportunity and risk. Managed with strategic foresight, it can lay the foundation for a mutually beneficial partnership and sustained economic development. If mismanaged, it risks entrenching imbalance, undermining legitimacy, and eroding public trust.
Opportunity Must Be Grounded in Legitimacy
There is little doubt that resource exploration presents Somalia with a strategic opportunity, one that could support economic recovery, expand fiscal space, and create pathways for long-term development. Yet opportunity, in isolation, is not enough. It must be anchored in legitimacy.
Somalia’s constitutional and legal framework is explicit: agreements governing natural resources must be transparent, inclusive, and subject to parliamentary approval. These are not procedural technicalities; they are foundational safeguards designed to ensure national ownership, protect sovereignty, and prevent future disputes.
Any process that circumvents these principles risks weakening not only the agreement itself, but also the institutional framework required to sustain it.
Concerns Over Balance and Constitutionality
The Somalia–Turkey oil agreement raises serious and well-founded concerns regarding its balance and overall fairness. In its current form, the arrangement appears weighted in a manner that risks disadvantaging Somalia’s long-term national interest. Key areas of concern include:
A markedly uneven distribution of economic returns
Open-ended cost recovery provisions that may delay meaningful national benefit
Limited clarity on taxation, revenue governance, and reinvestment frameworks
- The absence of firm commitments to local employment and meaningful domestic economic participation
- Dispute resolution mechanisms that do not reflect a neutral or equitably balanced framework
Taken together, these elements point to a framework that warrants careful review to ensure alignment with principles of equity, transparency, and mutual benefit.
Equally concerning is the process through which the agreement has emerged—absent full transparency, without inclusive consultation with Federal Member States, and without the constitutionally required approval of both Houses of Parliament.
The Risk of a Weak Institutional Context
These concerns are magnified by Somalia’s current institutional realities:
• Fragile governance structures
• Limited judicial independence
• Persistent corruption and patronage networks
• A political environment often shaped by winner-takes-all dynamics
In such a context, agreements perceived as opaque or imbalanced risk becoming sources of contention rather than engines of development.
Comparative experience demonstrates a consistent pattern: where natural resource agreements lack transparency, inclusivity, and legal grounding, they tend to exacerbate divisions rather than resolve them.
Message to the Government of Turkey
Over the past decade, Turkey has cultivated a strong and visible presence in Somalia through humanitarian engagement, infrastructure investment, and military and diplomatic cooperation. This engagement has generated a level of goodwill that is both significant and strategically valuable. That goodwill should be preserved.
Durable partnerships cannot be built on arrangements perceived as inequitable, nor on processes that appear to privilege individuals over institutions. They require alignment with the constitutional order and the broader interests of the Somali people. For Turkey, the strategic path forward is clear:
• Engage through transparent and lawful agreements
• Ensure that economic arrangements are fair, balanced, and visibly beneficial to Somali society
• Anchor cooperation in institutions rather than personalities
Association with contested processes or with actors perceived as lacking broad legitimacy carries reputational risk. It risks undermining public confidence and eroding the credibility Turkey has worked to establish.
The central question is not whether Somalia should develop its natural resources, nor whether it should partner with Turkey. It is how this should be done.
A credible and sustainable path forward requires:
• Full compliance with Somalia’s constitutional and legal frameworks
• Parliamentary oversight and formal approval
• Transparent clarification—and, where necessary, renegotiation—of key terms
• Inclusive engagement of Federal Member States
• Clear provisions for local participation, employment, and capacity-building
• Balanced and neutral dispute resolution mechanisms
These are not impediments to progress; they are the conditions for its durability.
Conclusion
The arrival of Çağrı Bey should mark the beginning of a new phase in Somalia’s economic trajectory. But it also constitutes a test. For Somalia, it is a test of governance and institutional integrity. For Turkey, it is a test of partnership, credibility, and long-term vision.
Enduring partnerships are not built on expediency. They are grounded in legitimacy, balance, and respect for the people whose resources are at stake.
Handled with care and foresight, this moment can strengthen relations between Somalia and Turkey. Handled otherwise, it risks becoming a source of avoidable contention.
The opportunity is real, but so too is the responsibility
