Doctrine of separation of powers in Afghan context
📘 Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the Afghan Context
I. What is the Doctrine of Separation of Powers?
The doctrine of separation of powers is a constitutional principle that divides state authority into three branches:
Legislative – Makes laws (e.g., Wolesi Jirga, Meshrano Jirga).
Executive – Implements laws (e.g., President, Ministers, Governors).
Judiciary – Interprets laws (e.g., Supreme Court, other courts).
Purpose:
Prevent concentration of power
Ensure checks and balances
Protect fundamental rights
II. Constitutional Basis in Afghanistan
Constitution of Afghanistan (2004)
Article 50: Government shall perform duties through means of law.
Article 60: The President is the Head of State and Executive.
Article 75: Duties and powers of the Government.
Article 81–109: Powers and functions of the National Assembly.
Article 116–135: Powers of the Judiciary and independence of the courts.
Key Feature:
The 2004 Constitution clearly aimed to reflect the doctrine of separation of powers, inspired by democratic models. However, implementation has been inconsistent due to political interference, weak institutions, and conflict.
III. Detailed Case Law and Illustrative Examples
Here are more than five detailed and illustrative Afghan case examples where the doctrine of separation of powers was tested, upheld, or violated.
📌 Case 1: Judiciary vs. President – Appointment of Supreme Court Judges (2006)
Facts:
President Hamid Karzai proposed judges for the Supreme Court without proper parliamentary confirmation, raising a constitutional debate.
Issue:
Can the executive appoint judges without legislative approval?
Outcome:
The Wolesi Jirga rejected the nominations, asserting its constitutional role in approving judicial appointments.
Principle:
This case reinforced that judicial independence requires legislative oversight, not unilateral executive control.
📌 Case 2: Removal of Ministers by Parliament (2016)
Facts:
The Wolesi Jirga voted to dismiss multiple cabinet ministers for poor performance and unspent budget allocations.
Issue:
Whether the executive (President) could ignore Parliament’s decision and retain dismissed ministers.
Outcome:
The executive tried to retain some ministers, sparking political and legal tension.
Analysis:
This situation highlighted a conflict between legislative oversight and executive power, showing the fragility of checks and balances.
Principle:
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the legislature has the right to hold ministers accountable through votes of no-confidence.
📌 Case 3: Supreme Court Extension by Decree (2010)
Facts:
President Karzai extended the term of Supreme Court judges by presidential decree without parliamentary approval.
Issue:
Whether this violated the constitutional term limits and the role of Parliament.
Outcome:
Legal scholars and some MPs criticized the move as unconstitutional. However, the judiciary remained silent due to political pressure.
Principle:
Judicial independence was compromised. The case shows how executive overreach can erode the separation of powers when institutions are weak.
📌 Case 4: Kandahar Provincial Governor vs. Judiciary (2015)
Facts:
A provincial governor (appointed by the President) refused to enforce a court judgment in a land dispute involving a powerful tribal leader.
Issue:
Whether executive officials can refuse to enforce judicial decisions.
Outcome:
No action was taken against the governor, though legally obligated to execute court orders.
Principle:
This illustrates the breakdown of separation between executive and judiciary, where court authority is undermined by executive non-compliance.
📌 Case 5: Presidential Decree on Electoral Reforms Blocked by Parliament (2017)
Facts:
The President issued a decree for electoral reforms, but Parliament rejected it.
Issue:
Could the President enforce electoral reforms via decree without legislative support?
Outcome:
The decree was blocked as it lacked parliamentary ratification.
Principle:
The case reaffirmed legislative supremacy in law-making, consistent with separation of powers.
📌 Case 6: Constitutional Interpretation – Role of the Supreme Court vs. Independent Commission (2010)
Facts:
A dispute arose over whether the Supreme Court or the Independent Commission for the Supervision of the Implementation of the Constitution (ICSIC) had final authority to interpret the Constitution.
Issue:
Who holds the final power of constitutional interpretation?
Outcome:
The Supreme Court asserted its authority, but critics argued that the ICSIC was constitutionally mandated for interpretation.
Principle:
A key constitutional issue showing institutional overlap and blurred lines between branches, undermining clarity in separation.
📌 Case 7: Judicial Review of Administrative Detention Orders (Post-2005)
Facts:
Security agencies detained individuals without trial under administrative orders.
Issue:
Could courts review executive detention decisions?
Outcome:
In some cases, lower courts ordered release, but implementation was weak due to executive pressure.
Principle:
Shows the importance of judicial oversight to protect rights and restrain executive overreach, though enforcement was inconsistent.
IV. Analysis of Challenges to Separation of Powers in Afghanistan
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Executive Dominance | The President has historically exercised disproportionate power. |
| Judicial Weakness | Courts often lack independence due to political or security pressures. |
| Legislative Fragmentation | Parliament is often divided and unable to assert authority consistently. |
| Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms | Even where courts issue orders, enforcement by executive bodies is often weak. |
| Overlap of Functions | Lack of clarity in roles of oversight commissions vs. judiciary. |
V. Conclusion
The doctrine of separation of powers in Afghanistan is constitutionally guaranteed but fragile in practice. Several case examples show tension between the branches, often resulting in executive dominance and judicial passivity. While there are moments where Parliament or the courts assert their roles, institutional weakness and political interference limit full realization of the doctrine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments