Conceptions of Transitional Justice in Somalia: Findings of Field Research in Mogadishu

Abstract

Abstract This article is part of a larger research project on popular conceptions of transitional justice in Somalia and is based on a 2012 survey of 30 individuals currently living in Mogadishu who directly experienced or witnessed gross human rights violations after 1991. Their testimonies indicate that targeted and random murders, gang violence against civilians, and rape were the most commonly experienced violations. The article then presents a summary and analysis of opinions on the most “acceptable” mechanisms for redressing past injustices. While the Somali clan culture of collective responsibility for crimes remains in existence, the research found that more than half of the respondents believe in individual responsibility for the crimes that have been committed. In terms of addressing past violations, our interviewees gave precedence to the role of traditional authorities over modern ones (national and international actors), and to some form of Shari'a legal redress over exclusive reliance on customary law (xeer) or international law. However, the most common popular conception of Shari'a is legalistic and focused on hudud punishments rather than on holistic Islamic approaches to justice. Our survey showed that modern understandings of transitional justice are limited among the general population and mostly confined to a small number of members of the educated elite in Somalia.