“Another agreement signed with the government of Turkey went through parliament. No one saw that agreement. The ministers have not seen it; the parliamentarians have not seen it. Then the question is: an agreement that was not seen—if it is said to have been approved—would it be legal? It will not be legal.
The reason is, when an agreement is to be made, two issues are relevant: one is the clauses of the agreement, and the other is the process it has to go through to make it legal. Both are important. The process requires the agreement to go through the cabinet and parliament as follows: the agreement has to be presented to the council of ministers, who must read it, approve it, and then pass it to parliament. Then the parliament must conduct a first reading, a second reading, and a third reading. Did that happen? No, it did not happen.
The government of Turkey is a government that came to the rescue of Somalia. It is a government that is praiseworthy, and we are indebted to them. But this issue has created confusion.
Then the cabinet and parliament were told that this is a security agreement where Turkey is helping us with maritime security. But the agreement we have now made with Ethiopia — where did it start? It started in Ankara, and this (Ethiopia) agreement casts doubt and creates confusion about the previous (Turkey) agreement.
Now, what we want is: to our Turkish brothers, we are grateful. You came to our assistance, and you came while I was the president (of Somalia). We are grateful and indebted. But this issue (terms of the Ankara Agreement) is a dangerous issue. Somalia and Ethiopia are neighbors, and between us, there is a centuries-old conflict. We want this to be solved but not at our expense.