Mogadishu, Somalia – The Auditor General of Somalia, Ahmed Isse Gutale, has revealed that three key judicial institutions declined to cooperate with his office in reviewing their 2024 budget expenditures, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the judiciary.
According to Gutale, the Supreme Court, the Benadir Regional Court, and the Benadir Regional Appeals Court refused to provide the necessary financial documents or engage with auditors during the investigation process. Collectively, these institutions control millions in public funds—figures which the Auditor General’s office had sought to examine in detail.
The allocations in question include $2.7 million for the Supreme Court, $2.5 million for the Benadir Regional Court, and $937,000 for the Benadir Regional Appeals Court. Gutale stated that the refusal undermines the government’s broader reform agenda, which emphasizes transparency and proper oversight of public finances.
“This lack of cooperation is not just a procedural matter—it is a direct challenge to Somalia’s commitment to accountability. Every public office, regardless of its independence, must uphold the principles of financial transparency,” Gutale said.
The Auditor General’s announcement has sparked debate among lawmakers and civil society advocates, many of whom view financial accountability in the judiciary as a critical step in restoring public trust. Analysts note that without proper oversight, the misuse or mismanagement of funds cannot be ruled out, especially in institutions tasked with upholding justice.
Calls are now mounting for the judiciary to comply with auditing requirements. Legal experts warn that continued resistance could weaken public confidence in the courts at a time when Somalia is striving to strengthen state institutions and attract international support for governance reforms.
The development underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and financial accountability. While Somalia’s judiciary enjoys constitutional protections, observers argue that independence should not be equated with immunity from financial oversight.
So far, the three courts have not issued a public response to the Auditor General’s statement.
