Witness Testimony In Afghan Criminal Courts
1. Legal Framework
Witness testimony plays a central role in Afghan criminal justice. The process is influenced by:
Afghanistan’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) – especially the 2014 version.
The Penal Code (2017) – defines offenses and liabilities.
Islamic (Sharia) principles – especially under Hanafi jurisprudence, which supplements statutory law.
The Constitution of 2004 (prior to Taliban takeover), particularly Articles 22 (equality), 31 (right to defense), and 128 (evidentiary standards).
2. Key Legal Features of Witness Testimony
Relevance and Admissibility:
Testimony must be directly related to the charges and collected lawfully.
Witness Qualification:
Under Sharia, for certain hudud (fixed) punishments, only male Muslim witnesses may be allowed. For other offenses, both genders may testify.
Oath Requirement:
Witnesses must take an oath before testifying in court. Under Islamic law, perjury is a serious offense.
Cross-Examination:
Allowed under the 2014 Criminal Procedure Code, but inconsistently applied in practice due to judicial discretion and security concerns.
Witness Protection:
Afghanistan has no robust witness protection program. Witness intimidation, especially in rural and insurgent-influenced areas, has been a chronic problem.
Written vs. Oral Testimony:
Oral testimony is preferred, but written statements (especially in absentia) have been used when witnesses are at risk or unavailable.
📚 Case Law Examples: Witness Testimony in Action
Below are real and reconstructed examples based on documented Afghan legal practice, NGO reports, and trial observations, demonstrating how courts handled witness testimony in various types of cases.
Case 1: Murder Trial in Nangarhar Province (2016)
Facts:
A man was accused of killing his neighbor over a land dispute. No physical evidence was available.
Witness Testimony:
Two eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the accused commit the murder.
The defense argued that the witnesses were biased family members.
Court Proceedings:
The witnesses testified in court under oath.
Defense was allowed to cross-examine.
No forensic evidence was submitted.
Outcome:
The court found the testimony credible and convicted the accused of intentional murder.
Significance:
Demonstrates how witness testimony alone can lead to conviction when no other evidence exists.
Case 2: Zina (Adultery) Prosecution in Herat (2017)
Facts:
A woman was accused of adultery (zina), a hudud offense under Islamic law.
Witness Testimony:
Prosecutors failed to produce four male eyewitnesses required under Sharia.
Testimony came from a neighbor and circumstantial statements.
Court Proceedings:
The defense cited Article 130 of the Constitution (requiring Sharia compliance).
Judge ruled that the evidentiary standard was not met.
Outcome:
The case was dismissed due to insufficient qualified witnesses.
Significance:
Illustrates strict evidentiary requirements under Islamic law for certain crimes.
Case 3: Corruption Trial of Provincial Official in Kabul (2018)
Facts:
A government official was accused of accepting bribes in exchange for construction permits.
Witness Testimony:
Two civil engineers testified that they paid bribes.
One retracted his statement in court, allegedly due to intimidation.
Court Proceedings:
Judges questioned the credibility of the remaining witness.
Defense emphasized lack of financial records.
Outcome:
The official was acquitted.
Significance:
Shows the fragility of witness credibility in the absence of supporting documentation or protection.
Case 4: Terrorism Case in Kunduz (2019)
Facts:
A man was charged with facilitating a Taliban attack that killed police officers.
Witness Testimony:
Three anonymous witnesses testified via written statements.
No cross-examination was allowed for security reasons.
Court Proceedings:
Defense objected, claiming the lack of in-court testimony violated rights.
Court upheld the statements, citing national security.
Outcome:
The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death.
Significance:
Highlights tension between due process and security in terrorism trials.
Case 5: Theft Trial in Bamyan (2020)
Facts:
A man was accused of stealing livestock from a village farmer.
Witness Testimony:
Two villagers testified they saw him near the scene.
One had a prior dispute with the accused.
Court Proceedings:
Defense presented alibi witnesses.
Judge evaluated credibility and motive of each witness.
Outcome:
Court acquitted the accused due to contradictions in testimony.
Significance:
Illustrates how courts weigh bias and credibility of witnesses in property crime trials.
Case 6: Domestic Violence Case in Mazar-e-Sharif (2021)
Facts:
A woman filed a criminal complaint against her husband for repeated physical abuse.
Witness Testimony:
Neighbors testified hearing cries and seeing bruises.
Husband denied all allegations.
Court Proceedings:
Court admitted testimony and medical reports.
Defense cross-examined the neighbors, questioning their motives.
Outcome:
The husband was found guilty and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows increasing, though still limited, reliance on witness testimony in gender-based violence cases.
Summary Table
| Case | Offense | Type of Testimony | Outcome | Key Legal Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nangarhar Murder (2016) | Murder | Two eyewitnesses | Conviction | Weight of testimonial evidence alone |
| Herat Zina (2017) | Adultery | Less than 4 eyewitnesses | Dismissal | Sharia evidentiary threshold |
| Kabul Corruption (2018) | Bribery | One retracted, one hostile | Acquittal | Credibility and intimidation |
| Kunduz Terrorism (2019) | Terrorism | Anonymous written | Conviction | No cross-exam in security trials |
| Bamyan Theft (2020) | Theft | Contradictory eyewitnesses | Acquittal | Evaluation of witness bias |
| Mazar Domestic Abuse (2021) | Domestic violence | Neighbor testimony + medical report | Conviction | Supporting evidence + consistent testimony |
🔍 Legal Challenges and Concerns
Witness Intimidation: Common, especially in insurgent-controlled areas.
Gender Bias: Women often denied status as witnesses in hudud cases.
Lack of Protection: No formal witness protection system existed before 2021.
Taliban-Era Courts (Post-2021): Under the current regime, witness testimony continues to be used, but procedures are less transparent and often lack judicial independence.
Conclusion
Witness testimony is an essential but legally complex component of Afghan criminal proceedings. While courts do value testimonial evidence:
Its reliability is often compromised by bias, fear, or lack of protection.
In Sharia-based cases, such as adultery or apostasy, rigid evidentiary standards can prevent testimony from being accepted unless specific religious criteria are met.
Afghan courts have made attempts to apply fair procedures, but political, cultural, and security factors often undermine the process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments