Burundian troops stationed in Somalia’s Middle Shabelle region appear set to remain in place well beyond the official conclusion of the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), even though Burundi is not among the countries selected to participate in the new African Union peacekeeping mission.
When the African Union announced the formation of a restructured peace support operation earlier this year to replace ATMIS, it included only a select group of troop-contributing countries. Burundi, which had been a key contributor to AMISOM and later ATMIS since 2007, was notably absent from the list. Despite this, Burundian forces have remained in their current positions in Middle Shabelle, operating in and around the regional capital, Jowhar.
This continuing deployment reflects a quiet but significant development in Somalia’s security landscape. The Burundian presence is no longer part of a formal AU mandate but seems to be maintained through a separate arrangement, possibly bilateral in nature. This unusual situation has attracted attention from regional observers and raises questions about the future structure of international military support in Somalia.
Burundian troops have played a long-standing role in stabilizing volatile areas of central Somalia. Their operational presence in Middle Shabelle has included manning checkpoints, securing main supply routes and supporting Somali forces during counterinsurgency operations. With the formal AU mission transitioning to a smaller, more politically focused structure, many expected the withdrawal of all non-selected forces. However, the Burundians have not redeployed, signaling a different trajectory.
The rationale behind their continued stay appears tied to the fragile security conditions in central Somalia. Although the Somali National Army has expanded its presence in recent years, large areas remain vulnerable to Al-Shabaab activity, and government control is limited outside urban centers. Middle Shabelle, in particular, has seen intermittent attacks on civilian convoys, government offices and local leaders.
The departure of a seasoned contingent like the Burundians could leave critical gaps in the region’s defense, especially in an environment where Somali forces are already stretched thin across multiple fronts. The continued presence of Burundian troops may therefore serve as a temporary security buffer during a difficult transition period.
What remains unclear is the legal and financial basis for the current deployment. Under ATMIS, Burundian soldiers operated within a clearly defined multinational framework, with logistical and financial support provided by international donors. With the AU mission now reshaped and Burundi left out, it is not yet publicly known who is funding or coordinating the Burundian mission in Somalia.
The African Union has not issued a formal position on the continued presence of Burundian forces. Similarly, there has been no detailed statement outlining the scope, duration or objectives of their current role in Somalia under the new arrangement.
Despite the ambiguity, on-the-ground reports indicate that Burundian troops continue to function as they had under ATMIS. They remain active in patrolling roadways, providing area security and supporting local stabilization efforts. Their role has not changed visibly, and they continue to interact with Somali forces and local officials in much the same way as before.
The situation in Middle Shabelle could be an early indication of how Somalia’s security model may evolve post-ATMIS. Rather than relying solely on large-scale AU-led missions, the country may see a mix of bilateral agreements, short-term deployments and hybrid partnerships that respond to specific regional needs.
This ad hoc approach, however, also brings risks. Without clear oversight and coordination, overlapping deployments could create confusion on the ground. There is also the potential for a patchwork of unaligned foreign troops operating under different mandates, leading to inconsistencies in engagement rules and operational priorities.
Nonetheless, the continued presence of Burundian troops highlights the challenges Somalia faces in fully taking over its national security. While the long-term goal remains a Somali-led security architecture, the immediate reality is that international support, both formal and informal, continues to play a crucial role.
As Somalia moves toward finalizing the transition from ATMIS and implementing its national security strategy, the Burundian case may serve as a test of how flexible and adaptive that transition can be. Whether through formal missions or discreet bilateral support, external actors are likely to remain part of Somalia’s security environment for the foreseeable future.
