Rights and liabilities of Afghan bureaucrats
Rights & Liabilities of Afghan Bureaucrats: Overview
"Bureaucrats" broadly includes civil servants, judges, prosecutors, public officials (ministerial, administrative), police, etc.
In Afghanistan, the rights and liabilities of bureaucrats derive from:
The Constitution, especially its provisions about public service, accountability, separation of powers, etc.
Statutes and civil service laws: rules governing hiring, promotion, discipline, removal.
Criminal law: for abuses, misuse of office, corruption, etc.
Custom, practice and oversight via bodies such as the Attorney General’s Office, Supreme Court, provincial authorities, commissions, etc.
International human rights obligations that Afghanistan has signed up to, which inform expectations of rule‐of‐law, fairness, protection from arbitrary removal, etc.
Specific Rights
Some of the rights bureaucrats may have (in Afghan legal framework/practice) include:
Right to a position / job security, subject to qualification, merit, and following due process.
Right to due process/disciplined process: before removal or punishment, a bureaucrat often has rights to notice of allegations, hearing, defense, etc.
Remuneration, pension, benefits: salary, allowances; these are typically guaranteed by statute.
Immunity in certain cases: e.g. judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, though scope depends.
Protection from arbitrary dismissal: constitutional or statutory safeguards.
Right to lawful, fair treatment in carrying out functions (not being subject to illegal orders, etc.).
Specific Liabilities
Conversely, bureaucrats in Afghanistan have liabilities such as:
Criminal liability for corruption, bribery, embezzlement, misuse of public funds.
Disciplinary liability: suspension, removal, fines, loss of benefits for breach of regulations.
Civil liability: in some cases, for damages (though practice may be weak).
Accountability to oversight bodies, audit, inspection, parliamentary oversight, etc.
Obligations under international and constitutional law: e.g. respecting human rights, not ordering or condoning illegal actions.
Examples / Case Illustrations
Although Afghan jurisprudence is not heavily published in accessible judgments, there are documented cases and practices that illustrate how rights & liabilities have been applied.
I will present four to five such cases / examples, describing what can be inferred.
Example 1: Judge Gholam Rabbani & Judge Mohammed Dawood — corruption charges
Facts: In 2006‑2007 in Afghanistan, Judge Gholam Rabbani (Paghman District Court) and another, Judge Mohammed Dawood of District 11 Court, were charged with bribery.
Liabilities in their case:
Removal from judicial office.
Imprisonment.
Payment of fines.
Implications for rights:
The fact that they were charged and tried suggests bureaucratic accountability (liability).
But also that judicial office does not confer absolute immunity in cases of bribery.
The process of investigation by Attorney General’s Office suggests legal procedure and oversight.
Example Outcomes:
Judge Rabbani: suspended license, then two years imprisonment and fine.
Judge Dawood: removal and imprisonment for three years and a large fine.
Example 2: Enayatullah Qasimi — Allegation of misuse of public funds
Facts: Enayatullah Qasimi, former Minister of Transportation (2006‑2008), was detained in Kabul and questioned on charges of misusing public funds (related to Ariana Airlines).
Liability:
Though detained and questioned, in that case it appears there was no full trial or substantial sanction (or none actually enforced immediately).
Rights challenges:
He had the right to be investigated.
Potential issues of whether the due process was followed.
The case shows accountability mechanisms exist but also limitations (political pressure, lack of follow‑through).
Example 3: Impunity and difficulty in prosecuting senior officials
Facts / Practice: Reports indicate that although many corruption cases involve senior government officials, in practice it's difficult to bring them to arrest or trial, especially if they have political or militia backing.
Liability vs Reality:
Legally, senior officials can be held criminally liable, but practically there is often impediment (political influence, security issues, lack of capacity).
This reveals a gap between the formal liabilities and what is enforceable.
Rights of bureaucrats here:
They may also have rights to fair process, to challenge charges, etc.
But in these cases, bureaucratic protections sometimes serve to shield senior officials effectively (for better or worse).
Example 4: Institutional Oversight & Constitutional Term Limits (ICOIC, Supreme Court, etc.)
Facts: The Independent Commission for Overseeing the Implementation of the Constitution (ICOIC), Supreme Court, Senate, provincial councils have constitutional mandates, terms, appointment/confirmation processes. Reports show these institutions are often not fully staffed, terms of members have expired, acting capacities are extended, and the executive has sometimes ignored constitutional term limits.
Rights of bureaucrats / judges / officials:
Right to have their term respected as per constitution.
Right to due appointment and confirmation.
Right to remuneration, status.
Liabilities / institutional consequences:
Operating in “acting” roles may limit authority or legal legitimacy.
Vulnerability to removal or political interference.
Weak oversight and legal challenge when constitutional norms are breached.
Example 5: Limited Legal Aid, Judicial Capacity, and Delays
Facts: Reports show that many detainees await trial for long periods; there are shortages of judges, prosecutors; many are untrained; sometimes cases are handled under combinations of codified law, Shari’a, and local custom; pressure from tribal leaders or political figures.
Relevance to bureaucrats’ liabilities and rights:
For prosecutors, judges and court bureaucrats: their liability includes ensuring timely trials, following legal procedures, resisting improper influence.
Their rights include being able to access legal codes, receive training, support to carry out their duties properly.
Critical Analysis & Gaps
From the available material, one sees:
Formal legal liability exists for misconduct (corruption, misuse of office, etc.). There are examples of both disciplinary and criminal actions.
Rights of bureaucrats are legally protected in principle, but often impaired in practice due to lack of institutional capacity, political interference, insecurity, corruption.
Constitutional guarantees are sometimes undermined, e.g. appointments, term limits, acting roles, oversight commissions not being functional.
Transparency and accountability are weak; even where statutes exist, enforcement is uneven.
Judicial decisions are less published or accessible, limiting case law that clearly defines, for example, what “due process” means for removal of public servants, or immunities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments