Destruction Of Public Property Prosecutions
Legal Framework
The destruction of public property in Afghanistan is governed mainly by the:
Afghan Penal Code (2017): Articles dealing with damage to public property, vandalism, and related offenses.
Administrative Law: Addresses responsibilities for maintaining public assets.
Local Regulations and Orders: Provide additional guidelines for protection of municipal infrastructure.
Definition of the Offense
Destruction of public property refers to intentionally damaging, vandalizing, or causing loss to any government-owned property, including buildings, infrastructure, vehicles, monuments, and public utilities.
Penalties
Penalties vary depending on the severity of the damage and intent but typically include:
Imprisonment (ranging from several months to years)
Fines proportional to the damage caused
Restitution or compensation to repair or replace damaged property
Case Law on Destruction of Public Property in Afghan Courts
1. Case of Mr. Rahim — Vandalism of a Government School
Facts: Mr. Rahim was charged with damaging windows and furniture in a government school during a protest.
Legal Issue: Whether the acts committed during a protest constitute criminal destruction of public property.
Decision: The court ruled that although the right to protest is protected, damaging public property is illegal and punishable. The defendant was held liable for deliberate destruction of government property.
Outcome: Mr. Rahim was sentenced to 1 year in prison and ordered to pay compensation for the damages.
2. Case of Ms. Fatima — Arson of a Public Health Clinic
Facts: Ms. Fatima was accused of setting fire to a public health clinic amid a local dispute.
Legal Issue: Establishing intent and responsibility for arson leading to destruction of public property.
Decision: The court found evidence of intentional arson based on witness testimony and forensic reports. Given the seriousness of destroying a public health facility, a severe sentence was imposed.
Outcome: Ms. Fatima received a 7-year prison sentence and was ordered to contribute to rebuilding costs.
3. Case of the Protesters — Destruction of Public Infrastructure
Facts: Several protesters were charged after damaging streetlights, traffic signals, and public benches during civil unrest.
Legal Issue: Collective responsibility and extent of individual accountability in group acts of destruction.
Decision: The court differentiated between those directly involved and those present. Those who actively caused damage were convicted; others were acquitted.
Outcome: Active participants received 2-year sentences and fines; others were released.
4. Case of Mr. Qader — Unauthorized Demolition of a Government Office Wall
Facts: Mr. Qader demolished part of a wall of a government office claiming it was to expand his adjacent property.
Legal Issue: Whether unauthorized demolition of government property constitutes a crime.
Decision: The court held that any damage to public property without authorization is unlawful. Mr. Qader’s claim did not justify destruction.
Outcome: He was fined and ordered to restore the wall at his own expense.
5. Case of a Municipal Worker — Negligent Damage to Public Water Pipes
Facts: A municipal worker was prosecuted for negligent actions that caused damage to public water infrastructure, leading to water shortages.
Legal Issue: Liability for negligent, as opposed to intentional, destruction of public property.
Decision: The court found the worker criminally negligent but distinguished from intentional damage. A lighter sentence was applied.
Outcome: The worker received a 6-month suspended sentence and was required to assist in repairs.
Summary and Legal Principles
Intent Matters: Intentional damage generally attracts harsher penalties than negligence.
Restitution is Common: Offenders are often required to compensate for repairs or replacement.
Protests Do Not Excuse Vandalism: While peaceful protest is legal, destruction during protests is punishable.
Collective vs. Individual Liability: Courts carefully assess the role of each individual in group offenses.
Protection of Public Infrastructure: Afghan courts emphasize safeguarding public property due to its importance for community welfare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments