Forced evictions in Mogadishu 1 Jan ā€“ 1 Dec 2014


SUMMARY JAN-DEC 2014: Forced evictions remain a critical protection concern in Mogadishu, but also in other parts of Somalia, predominantly urban areas. From January to December 2014, over 32,500 individuals of whom the vast majorities (over 90%) are IDPs have been forcibly evicted from public and private land and buildings in Mogadishu. Over 17,000 people remain at imminent risk of forced evictions in the capital. Throughout 2014, reports of forced evictions were highest in Mogadishu’s Hodan district given its prime location and recently, improved security and accessibility. Dayniile also witnessed forced evictions mainly as a result of conflict over ownership of land. Albeit on a smaller scale, forced evictions were further reported in Wadajir, Hamar Jajab, Hamar Weyne, Shangaani, Bondheere and Wardhigley districts of Mogadishu. Reports of forced evictions were highest in the month of October and whilst analysis on trends is ongoing, at this stage, facts to justify increased reports of forced eviction in the month of October remain difficult to establish.

Contested ownership of land/building, including public land, remains a major cause of forced evictions. IDPs commonly are only notified orally of evictions. In some cases, no form of notification is provided. The majority of those forcibly evicted moved to the outskirts of Mogadishu, in particular Sarakustra and Tabelaha, where living conditions are deplorable, services are limited and insecurity and human rights violations are commonly reported. Others, especially those with established social links in surrounding areas, sought refuge in nearby IDP settlements, closer to their sources of livelihood.
Persons with specific needs affected by the forced evictions include single/women headed households, children, elderly and persons with disabilities. Threats, intimidation, use of force, presence of armed militia and government soldiers, and in some instances violence were reported during the eviction process. There was no prior consultation with IDPs in any of the cases to assess needs and identify suitable alternatives prior to an eviction.