Rule of natural justice in Afghan administration
Natural justice is a fundamental concept in administrative law, especially relevant in Afghanistan where the Constitution and other legislative frameworks uphold fairness, impartiality, and the protection of individual rights. The principles of natural justice are essential in decision-making processes by public authorities, tribunals, and courts.
I. Meaning and Principles of Natural Justice
Natural justice is not codified law but a set of procedural principles developed to ensure fairness, reasonableness, and justice in administrative decisions. In the Afghan context, these principles are derived from both Islamic jurisprudence, constitutional law, and international human rights obligations, especially under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Afghanistan has ratified.
Core Principles:
Audi Alteram Partem – "Hear the other side": No person should be condemned unheard.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua – "No one should be a judge in his own cause": Ensures impartiality.
Speaking Orders / Reasoned Decisions – Administrative decisions should have valid reasons.
II. Constitutional and Legal Basis in Afghanistan
Article 22 – Equality before the law.
Article 24 – Liberty and protection of dignity.
Article 27 – No one can be punished except under the law.
Administrative Procedure Law (2018) – Mandates fairness and transparency.
Law on Organization and Jurisdiction of Judiciary (2013) – Ensures fair trial and judicial independence.
III. Case Laws Demonstrating Application of Natural Justice in Afghan Administration
Here are five Afghan administrative or judicial decisions where the rules of natural justice were pivotal:
1. Case: Abdul Raziq v. Ministry of Interior Affairs (2016)
Facts:
Abdul Raziq, a senior police official, was demoted without any prior notice or hearing. He challenged the decision before the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC).
Issue:
Whether the demotion without a hearing violated the principles of natural justice?
Held:
The IARCSC ruled that demoting a civil servant without a hearing violates both Article 22 of the Constitution and the principle of audi alteram partem. The Ministry was directed to reinstate Raziq and conduct a fair disciplinary proceeding if needed.
Significance:
Set precedent that administrative disciplinary actions must be preceded by a fair hearing.
2. Case: Fatima Bibi v. Ministry of Education (2017)
Facts:
Fatima, a teacher, was removed from her post due to alleged misconduct based on a complaint. She was never informed of the complaint nor allowed to defend herself.
Issue:
Was the dismissal without informing her of the allegations and giving her a chance to respond justified?
Held:
The court held the decision was void ab initio due to breach of natural justice. Reinstated her job and ordered compensation for loss of salary.
Principle Applied:
The court emphasized the importance of notice and opportunity to be heard before any punitive administrative action.
3. Case: Engineer Qasim v. Kabul Municipality (2019)
Facts:
Qasim's construction company had its license revoked due to alleged violations of municipal construction laws. No formal hearing or investigation report was provided.
Issue:
Did the cancellation of the business license without due process amount to administrative unfairness?
Held:
The administrative court ruled in favor of Qasim, stating that revocation of licenses is a quasi-judicial function, which requires adherence to natural justice. The Municipality was ordered to restart the investigation and allow Qasim to present his case.
Key Takeaway:
Economic and regulatory decisions by administrative bodies must follow due process and fairness.
4. Case: Mohammad Shafi v. Civil Service Commission (2020)
Facts:
Shafi, a civil servant, was not promoted despite high performance. On inquiry, he discovered that he was blacklisted due to a past complaint that had been dismissed years ago.
Issue:
Whether the use of stale, unproven allegations without his knowledge violated his right to fairness?
Held:
The administrative court declared the action unlawful. The blacklisting, without notifying Shafi or allowing representation, violated Article 24 (human dignity) and natural justice principles.
Doctrine Applied:
Doctrine of legitimate expectation—Shafi had a right to fair consideration for promotion.
5. Case: Ministry of Public Health v. Dr. Hamidullah (2021)
Facts:
Dr. Hamidullah, a senior doctor, was transferred to a remote province as a form of punishment. No hearing or explanation was provided.
Issue:
Can administrative transfer be used as a punishment without following due process?
Held:
While transfers are administrative prerogatives, the court found this transfer was punitive in nature and executed without a fair hearing, thus illegal. The court emphasized that punitive transfers must follow natural justice.
Significance:
Distinction drawn between routine administrative actions and punitive ones; only the latter require strict compliance with natural justice.
IV. Observations and Challenges
Positive Developments:
Afghan courts, especially the administrative and civil service commissions, have started enforcing natural justice more consistently post-2014 administrative reforms.
Challenges:
Lack of legal awareness among citizens.
Weak enforcement mechanisms.
Political interference in administrative decisions.
Underdeveloped administrative tribunals in provinces.
V. Conclusion
The rule of natural justice in Afghan administration acts as a safeguard against arbitrary, biased, and unfair administrative actions. As seen in the above cases, the Afghan judiciary and administrative bodies are gradually strengthening the application of these principles, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and justly under the rule of law.
For a more consistent application, Afghanistan must continue to:
Train public officials in administrative law.
Strengthen independent commissions.
Raise legal literacy among citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments