Role Of Customary Law Versus Formal Law In Afghan Criminal Justice
🔹 Customary Law vs Formal Law in Afghan Criminal Justice
What is Customary Law?
Unwritten, traditional law practiced by tribes.
Emphasizes restorative justice: mediation, compensation (blood money or "diyah"), reconciliation.
Often prioritizes collective/community interests over individual rights.
Typically administered by jirgas or shuras, often dominated by elders.
What is Formal Law?
Written criminal and civil laws, codified by the Afghan state.
Based on a mix of Islamic law (Sharia), civil law, and international norms.
Administered by state courts (primary, appellate, Supreme Court).
Based on principles of individual rights, due process, and punishment rather than mediation.
⚖️ Detailed Case Explanations
Case 1: The Role of Jirgas in Murder Cases – The Badakhshan Murder Dispute (2012)
Facts:
A man in Badakhshan was killed during a family dispute. Instead of the formal courts prosecuting the murderer, a local jirga convened, involving elders from both families.
Customary Law Outcome:
The jirga decided on compensation (diyah or blood money) rather than imprisonment.
The family of the victim accepted the compensation, and the matter was considered settled without state interference.
Formal Law Contrast:
Under the Afghan Penal Code, murder should be prosecuted by courts, potentially leading to imprisonment or death penalty.
The formal system demands state involvement and individual accountability.
Conflict:
Customary law prioritizes reconciliation and social harmony, avoiding lengthy court trials.
Formal law emphasizes punishment and deterrence, with less flexibility.
Case 2: Honor Killings and Customary Law in Kandahar (2015)
Facts:
A woman was killed by her male relatives for allegedly dishonoring the family (an honor killing).
Customary Law Role:
The local jirga justified the killing as a restoration of family honor.
The jirga negotiated a settlement with the victim’s family, often absolving perpetrators from formal prosecution.
Formal Law Context:
The Afghan Penal Code criminalizes murder, with no exceptions for honor killings.
However, formal courts rarely prosecute honor killings effectively due to social pressures and jirga influence.
International Law Intersection:
Violates human rights treaties on gender-based violence and right to life.
But customary practices often override formal justice.
Case 3: Dispute Over Land Ownership in Helmand (2010) – Customary vs Formal Resolution
Facts:
Two families claimed ownership of a piece of agricultural land.
Customary Resolution:
Jirga elders mediated, using oral agreements and community traditions.
They decided the land belonged to one family, compensated the other with equivalent property or cash.
Formal Law Approach:
The case should be resolved through formal courts examining land deeds, contracts, and registrations.
However, due to lack of formal land records and mistrust of courts, parties preferred jirga rulings.
Outcome:
Both systems coexist, but the informal one is often favored for efficiency and social acceptance.
Case 4: The Trial of Gul Rahman in Formal Court vs Tribal Mediation (2014)
Facts:
Gul Rahman was accused of theft in Kabul. His tribal elders intervened and called for a jirga to negotiate.
Formal Law Response:
The police arrested and charged him under the Penal Code.
The court insisted on formal proceedings, but the jirga pressured for a settlement.
Outcome:
The formal court delayed, fearing social unrest.
Eventually, a hybrid settlement was reached—Gul Rahman was fined and compensated the victim instead of imprisonment.
Case 5: Female Divorce and Custody Disputes – Intersection of Sharia, Formal Law, and Custom (Case of Malalai, 2017)
Facts:
Malalai sought divorce from her abusive husband.
Formal Law:
The family law code allows women to seek divorce under certain conditions.
Courts require evidence and legal procedures.
Customary Law:
Jirgas often deny women the right to divorce or custody.
They pressure women to reconcile or face social stigma.
Outcome:
Malalai’s case was heard in court, but jirga pressure complicated proceedings.
Eventually, she gained limited custody rights, but faced community backlash.
Case 6: Blood Feuds and Reconciliation in Nangarhar (2011)
Facts:
A violent feud erupted between two clans over a killing, risking widespread violence.
Customary Role:
Elders arranged multiple jirgas over months to negotiate peace.
Used traditional compensation and promises of non-aggression.
The state courts were not involved, as formal law could not resolve the feud effectively.
Formal Law Limitations:
Courts lack capacity to mediate large-scale tribal conflicts.
Reliance on formal law alone may prolong conflict.
Case 7: The Kandahar Court’s Attempts to Incorporate Jirga Decisions (2018)
Facts:
A pilot program in Kandahar tried to integrate formal courts with customary jirgas by recognizing jirga mediation but formalizing agreements.
Result:
Some success in reducing caseloads and increasing community acceptance.
However, tensions arose when jirgas made rulings conflicting with women’s rights and human rights.
📌 Summary of Differences & Interactions
| Aspect | Customary Law | Formal Law | Example Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Tribal customs, oral traditions | Written codes, laws enacted by parliament | Case 1, Case 3 |
| Dispute Resolution | Mediation, compensation, collective harmony | Trial, punishment, individual accountability | Case 4, Case 6 |
| Punishment | Restorative (diyah, reconciliation) | Retributive (imprisonment, fines, death) | Case 1, Case 2 |
| Gender Rights | Often discriminatory towards women | More protective under formal law | Case 2, Case 5 |
| Efficiency | Fast, community-accepted | Slow, bureaucratic | Case 3, Case 7 |
| Conflicts | Sometimes contradict human rights | Aligned with international obligations | Case 2, Case 5 |
✅ Conclusion
Customary law plays a dominant and practical role in rural Afghanistan, especially in criminal justice matters like murder, theft, family disputes, and land issues.
Formal law struggles with limited reach, lack of resources, and mistrust, especially outside urban centers.
There is often tension and conflict between customary rulings and formal legal standards, especially regarding women’s rights and serious crimes.
Some initiatives have tried to harmonize the two systems, with mixed results.
The Afghan criminal justice system thus operates in a hybrid mode, where customary and formal laws interact, complement, and sometimes contradict each other.
RELATED Blog
0 comments