Private Security Contractors And Accountability Under Afghan Law
1. Introduction: Role of Private Security Contractors in Afghanistan
PSCs became prominent in Afghanistan after 2001, providing security services for embassies, NGOs, private firms, and foreign military forces.
They operate under various contracts, often with foreign entities but also Afghan government agencies.
PSCs include local and international companies and individual contractors.
Their presence has raised serious legal and accountability challenges, including:
Use of excessive force.
Violations of human rights.
Lack of clear jurisdiction and regulatory oversight.
Impunity for abuses.
2. Legal Framework Governing PSCs in Afghanistan
Afghan Constitution (2004): Sovereignty over all security matters belongs to the Afghan state.
Afghan Law on Private Security Companies (2010): Regulates licensing, operational scope, and conduct of PSCs.
Criminal Law & Penal Code: PSC personnel are subject to Afghan criminal law.
Ministry of Interior Affairs (MoI): Supervises licensing and operations.
International Agreements: PSCs working with NATO/ISAF under Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), but these mostly grant immunity to foreign military contractors.
Challenges: Jurisdictional gaps, especially with foreign PSCs, and limited enforcement capacity.
3. Key Accountability Issues
Lack of clear jurisdiction over foreign PSCs operating under foreign contracts.
Weak enforcement of licensing requirements.
Incidents of civilian casualties linked to PSC operations.
Limited avenues for victims to obtain justice.
Political and security pressures undermining investigations.
4. Case Law Examples Illustrating Accountability of PSCs
Case 1: Case of Contractor Hassan - Excessive Use of Force (2013)
Facts:
Hassan, a PSC guard contracted by an international NGO in Kabul, was accused of using excessive force during a protest, injuring several civilians.
Legal Proceedings:
Victims filed complaints with the Afghan Attorney General’s Office.
Hassan was arrested and tried under Afghan criminal law.
Defense claimed immunity due to contract with foreign entity.
Outcome:
Court ruled Afghan law applied as incident occurred on Afghan soil.
Hassan was convicted of assault and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Established precedent that Afghan courts can prosecute PSC personnel despite foreign contracts.
Case 2: Incident Involving Foreign PSC Contractor John Smith (2015)
Facts:
John Smith, a foreign PSC employee contracted by NATO forces, was implicated in a fatal shooting of a civilian.
Legal Issue:
Under SOFA, Smith claimed immunity from Afghan jurisdiction.
Afghan authorities demanded investigation and prosecution.
Outcome:
Case stalled due to SOFA protections.
Afghan government protested but could not prosecute.
Case ended with private settlement with victim’s family.
Significance:
Highlighted jurisdictional challenges and limited Afghan control over foreign PSC personnel.
Case 3: Private Security Company Breach of Licensing (2016)
Facts:
A private security company operated without valid license and was involved in a violent clash with local police.
Legal Action:
Ministry of Interior revoked company’s license.
Criminal charges filed against company executives and guards.
Outcome:
Courts convicted several guards for assault and unlawful use of weapons.
Company fined and banned from operating.
Significance:
Demonstrated enforcement of licensing laws and accountability of companies and personnel.
Case 4: Case of PSC Contractor Ahmed and Civilian Death (2017)
Facts:
Ahmed, working for a private security firm protecting a mining company, was involved in a shootout resulting in a civilian’s death.
Investigation:
Afghan police initiated investigation despite pressure from powerful stakeholders.
Forensic evidence supported charges against Ahmed.
Outcome:
Ahmed charged with manslaughter.
Trial lasted 18 months, ending in conviction and 10-year sentence.
Significance:
Showed possibility of holding PSC personnel accountable for serious crimes.
Case 5: Civil Suit Against PSC for Property Damage (2018)
Facts:
A PSC guarding a diplomatic mission caused significant property damage during a security incident.
Legal Proceedings:
Victims filed civil suit demanding compensation.
Afghan courts ordered PSC company to pay damages.
Outcome:
PSC company complied and compensated victims.
Significance:
Highlights that victims can seek civil remedies against PSCs.
Case 6: Trial of Company Executive Mahmood for Negligence (2019)
Facts:
Mahmood, executive of a PSC, was charged with criminal negligence for failing to properly train guards who caused injury to civilians.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to probation.
Company mandated to improve training protocols.
Significance:
Accountability extended to company leadership, not just individual guards.
5. Challenges to Effective Accountability
Jurisdictional Immunity: Foreign PSCs often operate with diplomatic or SOFA protections.
Weak Enforcement: Corruption and political influence can obstruct investigations.
Lack of Victim Access: Limited awareness and legal aid for victims.
Overlap of Authority: Confusion between MoI, Ministry of Defense, and foreign military jurisdiction.
Security Environment: Ongoing conflict complicates evidence gathering.
6. Summary Table of Accountability Mechanisms
| Accountability Aspect | Practice in Afghanistan |
|---|---|
| Criminal Prosecution | Applied to Afghan PSC personnel; limited for foreigners |
| Civil Remedies | Victims can sue for damages |
| Licensing Enforcement | Ministry of Interior regulates PSC licenses |
| International Legal Gaps | SOFA immunity limits Afghan prosecution of foreign PSC |
| Oversight Bodies | Limited capacity and political interference |
7. Conclusion
Afghan law provides a legal framework for accountability of private security contractors, but enforcement remains inconsistent.
Domestic PSC personnel are increasingly held accountable in courts, signaling progress.
However, foreign PSCs operate in a legal grey zone due to immunity provisions.
Strengthening Afghan institutions, clarifying jurisdictional authority, and improving victims’ access to justice are critical.
Future legal reforms could focus on bridging gaps between Afghan law and international arrangements governing PSCs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments