In a move that underscores the tension between public trust and the presumption of innocence, the Lewiston City Council, on Monday, cast a decisive vote to commission an independent investigation into the qualifications of newly sworn-in Ward 5 Councilor Iman Osman. Osman, a 36-year-old Somali refugee, is currently embroiled in criminal charges related to stolen firearms and faces scrutiny over his legal residency.
Osman, who had just taken his oath of office earlier that day, found himself immediately confronted with a council vote of 6-1 to launch the investigation, with Osman casting the lone dissenting vote. The indictment against him, issued in early December, involves allegations of receiving, retaining, or disposing of stolen firearms, with incidents dating back to November 2023 and spanning until October 2024.
Despite the charges, Osman's legal representation maintains his innocence. Amidst the controversy, Osman has refrained from publicly revealing his current address, invoking safety concerns as the reason for his discretion. The heart of the residency dispute lies in Osman's use of a condemned, mixed-use building as his listed address during his campaigns for both the Lewiston School Committee and the City Council. The building, owned by his brother, has been reported as uninhabitable since October 2024 due to chemical hazards and other safety issues, casting doubt on whether Osman resides within the ward he was elected to represent.
Osman's situation has prompted Mayor Carl Sheline, who previously endorsed Osman for a School Committee vacancy, to call for his resignation. In a statement, Sheline expressed concern over the distraction the controversy has caused, saying, "While he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the judicial process will be lengthy and this matter has become an unwelcome distraction from the essential business of governing. Stepping down would be the right thing to do."
Council President David Chittim echoed the sentiment, emphasizing the council's desire to resolve the issue swiftly to return their focus to governance. "We want to resolve this unwanted distraction as quickly as possible," Chittim stated.
The investigation's findings are anticipated to be presented at the council's next session, potentially leading to a hearing to determine Osman's future on the council. During Monday's meeting, public opinion was split. Some residents voiced concerns over the criminal charges and the integrity of Osman's residency, while others suggested that the scrutiny he faces may be tied to anti-Somali sentiment and unfair targeting.
Supporters of Osman argue that his election victory addressed a lack of attention to downtown issues by previous councilors. Conversely, critics stress the importance of accurate representation and the necessity of verifying residency to maintain trust in government.
The controversy has also stirred tensions within the local Somali community. A social media post from a community member named Mohammad highlighted the potential political ramifications, warning that continued scrutiny of Osman could lead to a reevaluation of the Somali community's allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Osman's attorney, Kiernan Majerus-Collins, criticized the ongoing investigation for impeding his client's ability to fulfill his elected duties. "It's disappointing that the city has decided to continue to drag this out, continue to expend time and money, continue to create unnecessary controversy and impede his ability to do the job that he was elected to do," Majerus-Collins was quoted as saying.
Under Lewiston's City Charter, the council holds the authority to judge a member's qualifications and determine grounds for removal. A hearing on disqualification requires a minimum of five affirmative votes from councilors, with the member in question not permitted to vote.
The investigation into Councilor Osman stands as a high-profile test of local governance, weighing legal presumptions of innocence against the public's interest in representation and accountability. The council's decision could establish a precedent for addressing residency disputes and criminal charges involving elected officials.
