Compatibility Of Afghan Constitution With Sharia In Criminal Matters
1. Constitutional Basis for Sharia Compliance
Article 3 of the Afghan Constitution (2004):“No law shall contravene the sacred religion of Islam in Afghanistan.”
This constitutional provision mandates that all criminal laws, including new legislation and amendments, conform to Sharia principles.
It serves as a foundational standard for judicial review and legislative drafting.
Impact on Penal Provisions:
Crimes such as theft, adultery (zina), and apostasy are codified with reference to Sharia punishments while also attempting to integrate procedural safeguards.
Courts are often tasked with interpreting statutory provisions in light of both the Penal Code and Sharia.
2. Case: Farkhunda Malikzada Murder Trial (2015)
Facts: Farkhunda was falsely accused of burning the Quran and lynched by a mob in Kabul.
Legal Issues: The trial raised questions of qisas (retribution) and diyat (blood money), core Sharia principles, in assigning punishment for murder.
Outcome: While some perpetrators were sentenced to death or long-term imprisonment, others were acquitted or received reduced sentences due to procedural shortcomings.
Sharia Compatibility: The courts referred to Islamic principles of proportionality in punishment but also applied procedural standards from the Penal Code.
Significance: Highlighted the tension between Sharia-derived punishments and constitutional guarantees of fair trial.
3. Case: Gulnaz Zina Case (2009)
Facts: Gulnaz, a victim of rape, was initially charged with zina (adultery) after becoming pregnant.
Legal Issues: Under Sharia, proving zina requires strict evidentiary standards (e.g., four eyewitnesses). The trial highlighted conflicts between Islamic law and statutory procedural requirements.
Outcome: International advocacy and Supreme Court intervention led to her pardon.
Sharia Compatibility: Exposed how misapplication of Sharia without proper procedural safeguards can violate constitutional rights.
Significance: Led to reforms in evidentiary standards and raised awareness of ensuring Sharia compliance aligns with human rights protections.
4. Case: Sahar Gul Domestic Abuse Case (2011)
Facts: Sahar Gul was tortured and imprisoned by her in-laws.
Legal Issues: Her case involved hudud and tazir punishments, which under Sharia could be applied for domestic violence, assault, or forced marriage.
Outcome: Convictions were initially overturned but later reinstated after Supreme Court review.
Sharia Compatibility: Courts referred to Islamic prohibitions against harm and oppression (zulm) in upholding convictions.
Significance: Demonstrated how constitutional Sharia mandates can reinforce protection for vulnerable individuals.
5. Case: Nangar Khel Mortar Strike (2007)
Facts: Polish soldiers killed Afghan civilians in a mortar attack.
Legal Issues: The Afghan state sought accountability under Islamic principles of justice for non-combatants alongside statutory provisions for murder.
Outcome: Domestic accountability was limited; international diplomatic pressures dominated.
Sharia Compatibility: This case underscored the difficulty of applying Sharia principles in conflicts involving foreign actors.
Significance: Illustrated the interaction between Sharia, Afghan law, and international law in criminal accountability.
6. The Use of Hudood Punishments in Theft Cases
Facts: Several provincial courts have applied amputation for theft in accordance with Sharia when the legal thresholds were met (e.g., minimum value, proof of theft).
Outcome: Courts required stringent evidentiary standards under Sharia to ensure fairness.
Significance: Demonstrated a direct application of Sharia in Afghan criminal law while showing efforts to maintain procedural justice under the Constitution.
Key Observations on Compatibility
Constitutional Mandate vs. Practical Application:
Article 3 ensures Sharia compliance but requires interpretation by courts.
Discrepancies often arise due to procedural gaps or lack of judicial training.
Integration of Penal Code and Sharia:
Hudood (fixed) and tazir (discretionary) punishments are incorporated with procedural safeguards.
Courts balance traditional Islamic jurisprudence with statutory law.
Challenges:
Misinterpretation of Sharia can lead to human rights violations.
Enforcement is inconsistent, especially in rural areas.
Foreign military involvement complicates the application of Sharia principles in conflict-related cases.
Positive Developments:
Supreme Court interventions in high-profile cases have improved alignment with both constitutional protections and Sharia principles.
Reforms in evidentiary and procedural rules aim to harmonize Sharia with modern justice standards.
Conclusion
Afghanistan’s criminal law system illustrates a dual commitment: ensuring all legislation conforms to Islamic Sharia while simultaneously respecting constitutional guarantees of justice. High-profile cases like Farkhunda, Gulnaz, and Sahar Gul demonstrate both successes and challenges in achieving this compatibility. The Afghan legal system continues to evolve, striving for a balanced integration of Sharia principles with modern rule-of-law norms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments