In a dramatic turn in the Horn of Africa’s tangled geopolitics, Somaliland and Puntland announced a joint “Nairobi-Accord”, pledging to cooperate on security, trade, and reconciliation
NAIROBI – In a diplomatic breakthrough that could redefine the political landscape of the Horn of Africa, the Republic of Somaliland and Puntland Federal Member State have signed a historic security and cooperation agreement, signaling a potential end to decades of conflict and creating unprecedented challenges to Somalia’s federal authority.
The Nairobi Accord, signed October 4-5 after two days of face-to-face talks, the first such direct engagement in years, establishes joint counterterrorism operations, maritime security coordination, and cross-border trade facilitation between two entities that have historically been antagonistic rivals.
The agreement represents what analysts describe as a “strategic recalibration” by both parties at a time when Puntland is increasingly estranged from the Federal Government of Somalia in Mogadishu, and Somaliland continues its decades-long campaign for international recognition.
 |
 |
The Agreement’s Framework
The accord, described in a joint communiqué as “historic,” establishes multiple layers of cooperation between the two territories:
Security Cooperation: Joint operations against al-Shabaab and Islamic State militants, intelligence sharing, and coordinated border patrols to prevent infiltration by armed groups.
Maritime Security: Coordination against piracy and illicit trafficking along the northeastern coastline, including planned joint naval operations.
Economic Cooperation: Facilitation of cross-border trade through shared economic infrastructure and eased movement of people and goods.
Peace Process Support: Backing for reconciliation efforts in the contested Sanaag region, particularly in Erigavo, with both sides praising the Somaliland president’s peace initiative and Puntland’s supportive role.
The agreement also contains a significant political statement where Puntland formally welcomed “Somaliland’s progress in Governance and its right to its self-determination” – a clause that approaches legitimization of Somaliland’s statehood project.
The Art of Language, and What One Word Can Signal
One of the most striking aspects of the Nairobi agreement is how deftly it navigates semantics around recognition and status.
In the joint statement, the term “Government of Somaliland” is used, rather than “Republic of Somaliland,” apparently as a compromise. Puntland negotiators resisted any wording that might be interpreted as tacit recognition of Somaliland’s quest for sovereignty.
Nonetheless, the communiqué “reaffirmed its recognition of Somaliland’s right to self-determination.”
For Somaliland’s Minister of the Presidency, Khadar Abdi Hussein (Khadar Abdi Loge), the wording issue has become a focal point. He defended the agreement, posting on Facebook:
“The agreement that the Republic of Somaliland signed with the Puntland Government has long-term security goals and diplomatic weight that strengthen the argument for recognition as well as the acknowledgement we are seeking from the international community.”
Yet that same minister was criticized by others for allowing the phrase “Republic” to be dropped in favor of “Government” in the communiqué. In response, Khadar wrote that the document goes deeper than “political semantics” and that critics don’t always understand the strategy of statehood.
Somaliland’s Strategic Calculations
For Somaliland, which has sought international recognition as a sovereign nation since 1991, the agreement offers multiple strategic benefits:
Enhanced Legitimacy: The acknowledgement of its “right to self-determination” by Puntland represents a critical diplomatic concession from a key internal rival.
Security Gains: Joint operations against terrorist groups in contested border regions could strengthen Somaliland’s security and demonstrate its capacity as a regional security partner.
Economic Opportunities: Cross-border trade facilitation could boost economic development in frontier areas and strengthen Somaliland’s national economy.
Diplomatic Momentum: The agreement demonstrates Somaliland’s “capacity for sophisticated statecraft” at a moment when it is gaining traction within the United States Congress.
“Somaliland remains firmly committed to its independent status and continues its pursuit of international recognition as a sovereign nation,” stated an official release from Hargeisa, characterizing the accord as a “strategic and pragmatic pathway to reduce tensions” without diluting sovereignty.
Puntland’s Strategic Objectives
Puntland, which initiated a fundamental rupture with Somalia’s federal system in March 2024, achieves several key objectives through the agreement:
Security Enhancements: Access to coordinated counterterrorism efforts in the Cal Madow mountains, where ISIS militants have established hideouts.
Political Independence: Further demonstration of its autonomous foreign policy trajectory amid growing estrangement from Mogadishu.
Economic Benefits: Cross-border trade opportunities that could bolster its economic standing and development prospects.
Regional Influence: Maintained influence in Sanaag and Sool regions through the formalized role in supporting reconciliation efforts.
The interior minister of Puntland, Abdi Farah Said “Juha,” emphasized the practical security benefits: “The Cal Madow Mountains have become a hideout for ISIS militants. In coordination with Somaliland, we will soon begin joint operations to clear these areas”.
Somalia’s Diminished Position
The Nairobi Accord presents complex challenges for the Federal Government of Somalia:
Erosion of Federal Authority: The agreement further marginalizes Mogadishu’s role in northern affairs, coming amid Puntland’s “profound estrangement” from the federal system.
Constitutional Concerns: The deal potentially undermines Somalia’s territorial integrity and federal framework by creating functional arrangements between a federal member state and an independent territory.
Political Isolation: The accord follows closely on other independent diplomatic initiatives by federal member states, including a separate Nairobi meeting between Jubaland, Puntland, and opposition leaders to create a “Council for Somalia’s Future”.
Somalia’s Defense Minister Ahmed Moalim Fiqi has previously condemned such Nairobi gatherings as advancing “outside interests rather than the Somali people’s,” insisting that Somalia’s future “must be decided within the country, not abroad”.
Domestic Opposition and Constitutional Concerns
The agreement has sparked significant controversy in both Somaliland and Puntland, with opposition groups raising constitutional objections:
Somaliland’s Opposition
Critics in Somaliland argue the agreement fundamentally compromises the nation’s sovereignty. A widely circulated critique attributed to former minister Dr. Abdiweli Soufi identified Puntland’s designated role in Erigavo peace efforts and provisions on airspace management as potential violations of Somaliland’s sovereignty.
The opposition’s central anxiety is that “entering into an agreement with a Federal Member State of Somalia fundamentally obscures Somaliland’s claimed status as an independent republic”.
Puntland’s Opposition
Four major Puntland opposition parties Ifiye, Mustaqbal, Mideeye, and Sincad issued a joint statement rejecting the agreement as unconstitutional.
“We categorically reject any form of agreement between Puntland and Somaliland that lacks transparency or legal basis,” the statement read. “Such moves only advance separatist ambitions and weaken Somalia’s federal system”.
The opposition bloc accused the Puntland government of bypassing proper legal and institutional processes and warned against “secret arrangements” that exclude key political stakeholders.
Public Reaction and Social Discourse
Public response has reflected the deep divisions over the agreement: In Somaliland, government supporters have argued that criticism “ignores the profound irony” of opposition figures raising territorial concerns, countering that the previous administration’s handling of the Las Anod crisis represented a “far more grievous compromise of Somaliland’s territory”.
On social media platforms, debates rage between those seeing practical benefits and those fearing sovereignty dilution. One commenter noted Somaliland’s right “to sign a security agreement with a regional administration,” while others questioned the very existence of formal borders between the territories.
The Deputy Speaker of the Puntland parliament, Mohamed Baarri, created additional controversy by defending the deal with the observation that “Somaliland has its own passport and flag and that Puntland should stand by neighboring communities”.
Regional and International Perspectives
The agreement occurs within a complex geopolitical context:
United Arab Emirates and US: Both Somaliland and Puntland have cultivated extensive security and economic partnerships with the UAE, creating “similar institutional frameworks and furnished discreet backchannels for coordination”. The United States also maintains security cooperation with both entities and sees strategic benefits in de-escalating Horn of Africa tensions.
Kenya: As host of the talks, Kenya reinforces its role as a regional diplomatic mediator, though Mogadishu has criticized Nairobi for hosting meetings that potentially undermine federal authority.
Broader Implications: The accord represents a significant realignment in Somali politics, with Puntland increasingly functioning as a “de facto autonomous entity, pursuing its own diplomatic and security relationships” separate from Mogadishu.
Implications for Somaliland’s Recognition Quest
The Nairobi Agreement presents both opportunities and risks for Somaliland’s longstanding campaign for international recognition:
Potential Benefits: The accord demonstrates Somaliland’s capacity for “sophisticated statecraft” and responsible regional partnership. By stabilizing restive border regions and enhancing security cooperation, Somaliland could strengthen its case for being a reliable international partner.
Significant Risks: The “asymmetric” nature of the relationship poses challenges – Puntland wields socio-political leverage within communities inside Somaliland’s constitutional borders, while Somaliland possesses no reciprocal influence inside Puntland proper. Critics worry the agreement might “dangerously blur the lines between its claim of independence and Puntland’s status as a regional actor”.
The fundamental philosophical tension remains unresolved: Somaliland’s territorial claims are based on colonial borders (uti possidetis juris), while Puntland has historically articulated claims predicated on clan genealogy. The Nairobi accord doesn’t resolve this tension but creates a framework for practical cooperation despite it.
A Fragile Path Forward
The Nairobi Accord represents the most significant diplomatic progress between Somaliland and Puntland in decades, signaling “a mutual recognition of the strategic bankruptcy inherent in previous policies of confrontation”. Yet the agreement’s ultimate success “will not be the diplomatic fanfare surrounding its inception, but rather its capacity to yield tangible improvements in the lives of the region’s inhabitants”.
As implementation proceeds, both Somaliland and Puntland will need to navigate fierce domestic opposition, manage complex asymmetric risks, and demonstrate that cooperation can deliver security and economic benefits without compromising fundamental principles.
The coming months will test whether this breakthrough agreement can transform from a diplomatic achievement into sustainable peace, or whether the weight of historical grievances and constitutional anxieties will undermine this ambitious peace initiative.
