đź’” The Paradox of ‘Reclamation’: Forced Displacement and Human Rights Violations in Mogadishu
The sun rising over Mogadishu often illuminates more than just the capital city; it shines a light on a human rights tragedy playing out on the dusty streets. In recent years, the campaign of mass evictions and demolitions orchestrated by the Somali Federal Government (SFG) has thrown thousands of vulnerable families out of their makeshift homes. While the government frames these actions as necessary for “reclaiming public land” and restoring order, the outcome, as widely documented by aid agencies and human rights monitors, appears to be state-sanctioned land grabbing and elite enrichment.
This situation presents a compelling case study of a profound policy-practice contradiction—a gap between what the government says it is doing and what its actions actually achieve—that has devastating consequences for the nation’s most fragile communities.
The Central Contradiction: Order vs. Acquisition
The heart of this crisis lies in the clash between the SFG’s proclaimed goal and the harsh economic and social reality on the ground:
- The Official Narrative (The Justification): The government claims a legal and moral mandate to restore state authority over public assets, such as former military compounds, markets, and municipal land, often citing decades of illegal occupation by squatters and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The stated aim is to facilitate urban development, improve infrastructure, and enforce the rule of law after decades of civil conflict.
- The Documented Reality (The Practice): Reports from humanitarian agencies and local media consistently allege that the reclaimed land is immediately transferred—often through opaque, non-transparent deals—to wealthy businessmen and political patrons. The evictions thus function not as a process of restoring public ownership but as a mechanism for privatizing public assets for the benefit of political and economic elites. This fundamental shift from “public good” to “private gain” is the central contradiction fueling the crisis. The evictions look less like city planning and more like a high-stakes, corrupt land sale.
Human Rights Violations as a Consequence
The non-transparent and often forceful nature of the land transfers directly enables systematic violations of fundamental human rights, particularly for the displaced IDP communities—people who fled war, famine, and violence and sought refuge in the capital.
1. The Right to Adequate Housing and Security of Tenure
The evictions are overwhelmingly conducted without genuine consultation, adequate notice, or adherence to national or international due process standards.
- Forced Evictions: Human Rights Watch and other observers note the use of force and intimidation by security forces, rendering the actions unlawful forced evictions under international human rights law. The residents are given hours, not weeks, to vacate, and their shelters are often reduced to rubble while they watch.
- Targeting the Vulnerable: The displaced are predominantly IDPs—people who have no formal land titles. By targeting these settlements, the government is inflicting a secondary displacement on those least equipped to cope. They are simply moved from one insecure, makeshift camp to another, restarting the cycle of poverty and vulnerability.
2. The Right to Livelihood and Property
The evictions lead to the immediate destruction of property (homes, shelters, small businesses) and the loss of livelihoods.
- Many IDP families rely on nearby markets and services for income. Their forced relocation severs their fragile economic ties, plunging thousands back into destitution and making them utterly dependent on shrinking humanitarian assistance.
- The government argues the land isn’t “theirs,” but decades of unchallenged occupation, in many cases, created a form of de facto tenure security—a quiet understanding that this spot was home. The lack of any effective compensation or remedy for the loss of their established homes and investments represents a clear denial of justice.
3. Protection of Minority and Marginalized Groups
IDP communities often include individuals from minority or marginalized clans who already face systemic discrimination in the Mogadishu land market.
- The evictions reinforce these existing social inequalities, demonstrating a failure by the state to protect the most vulnerable segments of its population. The use of state power to benefit a select elite at the expense of these groups highlights a profound governance failure. In essence, the government is prioritizing political connections and profit over the lives of its most marginalized citizens.
Conclusion: A Crisis of Accountability
The Mogadishu land crisis reveals a tragic and frustrating pattern where the instruments of the state—law enforcement and urban planning mandates—are allegedly co-opted for corruption. The contradiction between “reclaiming public land” and illegally selling it for private profit creates a cycle of displacement that violates numerous international covenants.
This is not just a problem of land policy; it is a fundamental crisis of accountability and humanity. Until the government establishes transparent land administration processes, guarantees due process in all evictions, and provides effective remedies and alternative housing for those displaced, the campaign will continue to be viewed not as a triumph of governance, but as a devastating example of power deployed against the poor for the benefit of the politically connected elite.
