A Prosecutorial Submission Following the Killing of a Civilian by a Police Officer
Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif | Prosecutor
26 July 2025 | Somalia
Overview
On 26 July 2025, during criminal proceedings concerning the killing of a civilian by a police officer, I delivered a prosecutorial submission addressing the circumstances of the case, the importance of CCTV evidence, and the standards of conduct expected from a person entrusted with police authority.
According to the case presented before the Court, the accused was a serving police officer who killed a civilian following an encounter that arose from an extremely minor and unjustifiable circumstance: the civilian had looked at him.
The prosecution's position was that the incident demonstrated a serious abuse of the authority and responsibility entrusted to a police officer. The accused was armed by virtue of his position, but that authority did not place him above the law or give him the right to take the life of a member of the public.
In my submission, I addressed what I considered an important element of the circumstances surrounding the offence: the apparent sense of superiority and impunity demonstrated by the accused. His position as an armed police officer could never justify treating another person's life as though it had less value or assuming that official status would protect unlawful conduct from accountability.
An important feature of the case was that CCTV footage captured the incident.
The recording provided important evidence concerning what had occurred and enabled the events to be examined through objective visual material rather than relying solely on competing accounts of the incident.
For me, this also demonstrated the growing importance of technology in criminal investigations and prosecutions. CCTV can provide courts with evidence capable of clarifying events, testing statements and assisting the judicial process in establishing what happened.
During my courtroom presentation, I also used the word POLICE as a framework for discussing the professional qualities traditionally associated with policing. I referred to the commonly used formulation:
P — Politeness
O — Obedience
L — Loyalty
I — Intelligence
C — Courtesy
E — Efficiency
I used these principles to ask a fundamental question before the Court: had the accused's conduct reflected the standards that should be expected from a police officer?
A police officer is entrusted with authority for the purpose of maintaining public safety and enforcing the law. That authority carries responsibility, restraint and accountability. It cannot properly be transformed into personal power over members of the public.
The official Somali Police Force describes its responsibilities as including crime fighting, traffic control, maintaining public safety and counter-terrorism. Modern professional policing frameworks similarly emphasise respect, public service and accountability in the exercise of police authority.
I therefore explained to the Court that the conduct alleged in this case was fundamentally inconsistent with the values I had used to illustrate the responsibilities attached to the police profession.
My submission went beyond the question of criminal responsibility for the individual offence. I also addressed whether a person whose conduct so seriously contradicted the responsibilities of policing should continue to hold the status and authority of a police officer.
I argued that the accused was no longer deserving of continued membership in the Police Force, because the authority entrusted to a police officer exists to protect the public and uphold the law—not to place the officer above those laws.
The case therefore raised two connected forms of accountability: individual accountability for the killing before the competent Court, and professional accountability arising from the responsibilities attached to police service.
For me as a prosecutor, the case represented an important principle of public service: the greater the authority entrusted to an officer, the greater the responsibility to exercise that authority lawfully and with respect for human life.
A uniform, official position or institutional authority cannot place an individual beyond accountability. Where a member of a security institution is accused of abusing that authority, the justice system has a responsibility to examine the evidence impartially and apply the law.
The CCTV evidence was particularly significant in that process because it helped place the actual events before the Court and demonstrated the increasing importance of objective technological evidence in modern criminal proceedings.
The case also provided an opportunity to reinforce a broader message concerning the relationship between the police and the public. Police authority ultimately exists in the service of law, public safety and the protection of the community. When that authority is seriously abused, accountability is essential not only for the individual case but also for maintaining public confidence in the institution itself.
Courtroom Video
Original Language: Somali
Date: 26 July 2025
Speaker: Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif
Role: Prosecutor
Subject: Police Accountability, CCTV Evidence and Professional Responsibility
The video below contains part of the prosecutorial submission I delivered before the Court concerning the killing of a civilian, the responsibilities attached to police authority and whether the accused's conduct was compatible with continued service as a police officer.