Summary
The indirect electoral process has been undermined by multiple actors ranging from the federal and regional governments to the individual contenders. Bribery, intimidation, voter list manipulation, and outright fraud have affected the vast majority of cases studied.
Vote buying is not only a civic failure but a huge security loophole: it opens the door to exploits by criminal organisations to infiltrate nefarious individuals into a high profile position.
Dispute resolution mechanisms have largely not worked — and when they work, they have been undercut by political leaders who interfere and overrule their decisions, raising into question the independence and utility of the election organisers.
The process has shown that only universal suffrage can reduce the impact of vote buying in election outcome; however, the current system is still designed for vote buying as the president is not elected by the public but by the members of parliament.
Before general elections are held in 2020, the current constitution should be reviewed prior to ratification and make the president directly electable by the public.
Introduction
For 11 months this year, marqaati has been signing Integrity Pacts with political actors across Somalia. The Pacts were signed by the following candidates for parliament: 6 from Somaliland; 9 from Galmudug; 20 from Southwest and 20 from Puntland. Additionally, 35 elders and 3 presidential candidates have signed, as have more than 30 political parties.
The Integrity Pacts that were signed by political parties and individual candidates were not respected, partly because the ruling party, PDP, and the president refused to sign it. It was clear that massive corruption would take place since then; marqaati is hereby doing its obligations under the Pact, which is to report on instances of lack of implementation of the Pact and give relevant advise in order to ensure that current issues don’t easily repeat again in 2020.
Methodology
The findings presented here are based on interviews that were conducted with delegates, key informants within individual campaigns of candidates vying for a seat in parliament, candidates themselves, and questionnaires on the electoral process answered by more than 50 candidates and elders.
Furthermore, we’ve used statistical analysis to look at the relationship between complaints of irregularities and election win margins. While a narrow margin does not necessarily mean no corruption happened, this method helps us in pinpointing the intersection of complaints of fraud and abuse with unbelievably wide margins of victory. We have also used statistical analysis to determine the viability of election results.
Findings
The following is an outline of the types and some of the incidences of corruption that had taken place in the electoral process this year.
- Intimidation and obstruction was the hallmark of the process
Elders and candidates reported systematic intimidation by security forces of federal and regional states seeking to influence the makeup of the delegates. More than 75% of respondents said that they were expecting or had faced intimidation and voter fraud.
Intimidation of candidates and manipulation of the voters list were most common in Jubbaland, Southwest, and Somaliland (held in Mogadishu). This was apparently because candidates from those regions did not have the most money; for instance, individual voters were paid $500 by some winning candidates from these regions, compared to up to a ridiculous amount of $30,000 per vote in the most expensive election in HirShabelle.
In HirShabelle, some elections were held on a Friday without notifying all candidates except the favoured ones. Additionally, a candidate who had engaged in violence at the voting location was allowed to run over the objections of the Federal Indirect Election Implementation Team (FIEIT). He ‘won’ with 88% of the vote.
Some candidates were stopped from entering the voting venues, when their names were put up at the door and stopped from entering by the security forces. This was most common in Jubbaland and Southwest state. Conversely, amounts paid to buy seats in those regions were lower than in other regions.
In Jubbaland, a well-known politician who had lost an election to the upper house was elected to the lower house, after all opposing candidates were forced to withdraw or stopped from attending. He won with 98% of the vote.
- Individual candidates were involved in the selection of voters
Elders were required to appoint 50 voters (known as ‘delegates’) from their sub-clan to elect each MP; however, in almost all cases closely investigated, elders were selling the delegates to candidates vying for the seat. In some instances, candidates bought the right to appoint a simple majority from the elders, and in other cases they bought all 50 delegates.
For instance, in one race in Puntland, an elder sold 16 slots to a candidate. The candidate went on to buy 10 other votes from the rest of the delegates and won with a simple majority of 26/51.
Some candidates were running against dummy candidates who were also paid for by them and who got between 7 and 0 votes. The candidates who were doing this were ones who controlled a vast majority of the delegates, as explained above.
Regional governments were openly manipulating the lists of voters. For instance, one elder from Galmudug sent multiple complaints to marqaati of the delegates that he had submitted being switched with other names by the regional election commission; his complaints to the regional disputes resolution body were ignored.
- Bribery was very common and normalised
Bribe amounts were highest in HirShabelle where the most expensive seat was at $2.5M, followed by Galmudug and Puntland (seat cost is the sum of all bribes paid by both winning and losing candidates for one seat).
A winning candidate from HirShabelle told marqaati that he had paid $260K ($150K of his own money and $110K in borrowed money) as bribes in order to, ironically, ‘not humiliate’ himself by losing. He won with 86% of the vote. Losing candidates paid between $150K and $100K, making that seat worth $510K in bribes.
In Galmudug and Puntland, the same trend was noticed, with many seats costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Asked by marqaati why they would pay upwards of $300K for a seat in parliament, one political operative said it was to do with prestige, immunity, and obviously the chance to elect the next president and probably recoup spent money.
Voters seemed willing to vote for whoever gave them a dollar more than the other; in all cases where money is known to have changed hands, the party with the most money won. It is not clear whether this will be the case with MPs voting for president, but two recently-elected MPs said that they’d take money from everyone and vote for whoever they wanted.
Many candidates seeking a seat in parliament were bankrolled by the ruling party, PDP (also known as ‘Dam Jadeed’), which had refused to sign the Integrity Pacts. The aforementioned candidate who was forced to add $260K of his own money into his bribing campaign said that the president himself had assured him that he would be bankrolled but that he hadn’t received back his money as of the publishing of this report.
While state funds have been diverted in the past 18 months in preparation for the 2016 elections, as evidenced by security forces rarely receiving salaries in that time period and government property blindly privatised, the ruling party did not win many seats, suggesting that it has spent less money than its opponents (apparently saving most money for the presidential election).
Other MPs who had self-funded said that they are expecting to recoup their ‘investment’ in the upcoming presidential elections. Cost per vote, it will probably be the most expensive election in the world.
- Winning margins were incredibly high in races involving allegations of corruption
The following is a sample list of election results, showing an alarming number of candidates receiving more than 80%, and many 100% of the votes – a statistical impossibility in a free and fair election. Statistically, most races should have been won by a simple majority to two thirds majority, with very rare cases of 80 per cent and more.
Of 98 election results analysed, we have detected 89 elections in which the winners received 78.4% or above, including 58 that got between 84% and 98%; two were no contest (all opposing candidates suspiciously stepped down at the last moment); and 15 got 100% of the votes.
This suggests that over 76% of the candidates received unbelievably wide margins of victory between 84% and 100%.
While the below list is neither an exhaustive list of highly improbable natural results (it is a random sample that includes even plausible margins) nor an allegation that all are results of corruption. Our calculation is that 1% of results with a margin of more than 78% could be a natural outcome:
Hirshabelle:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House |
| Abdiqadir Ossoble | 34 | 66.6666667 | Lower |
| Maxamed Abukar Islow (Ducaale) | 48 | 94.1176471 | Lower |
| C/salaan Sheekh Xasan Barsane | 29 | 56.8627451 | Lower |
| Cusmaan Maxamed Cabdi | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower |
| C/laahi maxamed nuur | 28 | 54.9019608 | Lower |
| Maryan ahmed haruun | 38 | 74.5098039 | Lower |
| Maxamud c/laahi Ahmed | 38 | 74.5098039 | Lower |
| farxiyo maxamuud dhaqane | 43 | 84.3137255 | Lower |
| Maxaedm c/laahi nuux | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower |
| Muuse Suudi Yalaxow | 91 | 92.8571429 | Upper |
| Prof Cusmaan Maxamuud Dufle | 85 | 86.7346939 | Upper |
| Cusmaan Axmed Macow | 73 | 74.4897959 | Upper |
| Cusmaan Maxamed Cabdi | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower |
| Maxamed cali nuur | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower |
| C/shakuur cali mire | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower |
| farxiyo maxamuud dhaqane | 43 | 84.3137255 | Lower |
| Maxaedm c/laahi nuux | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower |
Galmudug:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House | |
| C/qaadir Gaafow Maxamuud | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Yuusuf xeyle | 48 | 94.11764706 | Lower | |
| Naciimo maxamed cali | 45 | 88.23529412 | Lower | |
| Saciid Nuur Qayliye Giriish | 50 | 98.03921569 | Lower | |
| Saabir Nuur Shuuriye | 45 | 88.23529412 | Lower | |
| Mahad Maxamed Salaad | 40 | 78.43137255 | Lower | |
| Qaasim Maxamed Jaamac | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Duniyo Maxamed Ali | 44 | 86.2745098 | Lower | |
| mustaf sheekh cali dhuxulow | 47 | 92.15686275 | Lower | |
| Xuseen Qaasim Yuusuf | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
| Xasan Macalin Maxamud | 48 | 94.11764706 | Lower | |
| mustaf sheekh cali dhuxulow | 47 | 92.15686275 | Lower | |
| Cabdulaahi Cali Axmed | 40 | 78.43137255 | Lower | |
| Maxamed Cabdule Faarax | 40 | 78.43137255 | Lower | |
| Xersi Aadan Rooble | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
| cabdiraxmaan maxamed xuseen | 46 | 90.19607843 | Lower | |
| Maryan Cariif Qaasim | 45 | 88.23529412 | Lower | |
| Cabdiwali Maxamed Qanyare | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
| Cabdicasiis Cilmi Cali | 41 | 80.39215686 | Lower | |
| Ikraan Aadan | 43 | 84.31372549 | Lower | |
| Axmed Macalin Fiqi Axmed | 47 | 92.15686275 | Lower | |
| Maryam Xaaji Cabdi Geedi | 48 | 94.11764706 | Lower | |
| Maryam Maxamed Xuseen | 48 | 94.11764706 | Lower | |
| maxamed axemd abtidoon | 41 | 80.39215686 | Lower | |
Puntland:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House | |
| Cali yuusuf cali xoosh | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
| Cumar Cabdirashiid Cali sharmaarke | 47 | 71.21212121 | Upper | |
| Cabdiraxmaan Sheekh Maxamed Maxamud Farole | 59 | 89.39393939 | Upper | |
| Cabdisalaam Xaaji Maxamuud Dheere | 50 | 75.75757576 | Upper | |
| Maxamud Axmed Maxamud Mashruuc | 56 | 84.84848485 | Upper | |
| Siciido Xasan Cismaan | 41 | 62.12121212 | Upper | |
| Maxamed Cabdikaafi Maxamed | 45 | 88.23529412 | Lower | |
| Xaawo Yuusuf Axmed | 40 | 78.43137255 | Lower | |
| Sharmaake Garaad Saleeman | 50 | 98.03921569 | Lower | |
| Sacdiya Samatar | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
| Maxamed Xaaji Geele | 49 | 96.07843137 | Lower | |
Southwest:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House | |
| maxamed shiid cusmaan jawaari | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| c/laahi shiiq ismaaciil | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| maxamed saciid Abdulaahi | 40 | 78.4313725 | Lower | |
| C/laahi cumar Abshir | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| shiiq Aadan maxamed Nuur | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower | |
| sayid cali c/qaadir macalin | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower | |
| maxamed jaamac mursal geelle | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| Maxamed axmed mursal qoomaal | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Aaadan ibraahim ibraahim dhaa yoow | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Cali Aadan eylow | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Shiiq shaacir axmed | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Ibraahim yaroow isaaq | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Raabaca sheekh nuuroow | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Fowsiyo maxamed sheekh | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| cabduqaadir shariif xasan sheekh Aadan | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower | |
| Shariif maxamed cabdulaahi | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| Samra cumar ibraahim | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| Cabdi casis lafta gareen | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| Khaliif Duureey | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
Somaliland:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House | |
| Mahad Cabdalla cawad | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower | |
| Maxamed Cabdi Xayir Maareeye | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Aamino Axmed | 51 | 100 | Lower | |
| Cilmi Maxamed Nuur | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
| Nimco Aadan Ciise | No Contest | Lower | ||
| Saalax Axmed Jaamac | No Contest | Lower | ||
| Sahro Cabdqadir Cabdinasir | 48 | 94.1176471 | Lower | |
| Jamal Xasan Ismaciil | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower | |
| Faadumo Cali | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower | |
| Cabdulahi Cusmaan Ducaale | 45 | 88.2352941 | Lower | |
Jubbaland:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House |
| Cabdulahi Maxamed Adan | 44 | 86.2745098 | Lower |
| Cabdiraxmaan Kulmiye Xirsi | 48 | 94.1176471 | Lower |
| Cabdiqaadir Sheekh Cali Ibraahim | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower |
| Axmed Cismaan Ibraahim | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower |
| Maxamed Cabdulahi Gaandi | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower |
| Sheekh Nuur Maxamed Xasan | 51 | 100 | Lower |
| Cabdiqaadir Sheekh Cali | 50 | 98.0392157 | Lower |
| Axmed Cusmaan Ibraahim | 49 | 96.0784314 | Lower |
| Cabdiraxmaan Kulmiye Xirsi | 48 | 94.1176471 | Lower |
| Adan Isaaq | 40 | 78.4313725 | Lower |
Banadir:
| Name of winner | Votes | Percent of Total | House |
| Fahmo Axmed Nuur | 51 | 100 | Lower |
Recommendations
- Cases voided by the disputes body should not be allowed to be certified. That will make the process less legitimate than it already is.
- Preparations for 2020 elections should start now. marqaati will start its advocacy towards a free and fair general election the moment this process ends. Otherwise, talk of elections will be delayed until a time when leaders can say ‘there isn’t enough time’ to organise a general election as happened last year.
- The parliamentary system will ensure that corruption will become a culture in Somali politics and that presidential hopefuls will continue to buy the members of parliament. marqaati proposes that the Somali constitution be amended prior to its ratification and ensure that the public can directly vote for all their political leaders.
- Somali CSOs should be courageous and participate in the monitoring and critique of the elections. Silence equals acquiescence.
- Spoilers and political leaders continuing to obstruct the little accountability that has taken place should be sanctioned by the international community.
Conclusion
Political failures at multiple levels have compounded to delay and undermine the indirect election process. In order to regain a semblance of legitimacy, there should be accountability for the abuses that have occurred.