Authority of checkpoints in governance
Authority of Checkpoints in Governance
1. Concept and Purpose of Checkpoints
Checkpoints are physical control points established by government authorities—often military, police, or security forces—to regulate movement, enhance security, prevent crime, and enforce laws.
In Afghanistan, checkpoints are common due to ongoing security challenges, insurgency threats, and law enforcement needs.
Their authority is derived from laws relating to public order, security, and administrative regulations.
2. Legal Framework Governing Checkpoints in Afghanistan
Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) provides broad authority to maintain security (Articles 7, 27, and 32).
Security Sector Laws and Police Law empower law enforcement agencies to operate checkpoints.
Public Order Regulations authorize temporary detention, identity checks, and searches at checkpoints.
Emergency Laws and curfew orders may further regulate checkpoint operations.
3. Scope of Authority at Checkpoints
Control and verify identity documents of individuals.
Search persons, vehicles, and goods to prevent illegal activities (e.g., weapons smuggling, insurgent movements).
Detain or arrest suspects under legal conditions.
Restrict movement based on curfews, security alerts, or specific orders.
Enforce administrative orders such as quarantine during epidemics or lockdowns.
4. Limits on Checkpoint Authority
Constitutional rights such as privacy, freedom of movement, and due process limit excessive checkpoint powers.
Searches and detentions must be reasonable, lawful, and necessary.
Arbitrary or abusive use of checkpoint authority violates fundamental rights and administrative law.
Checkpoints cannot be used for political repression or illegal extortion.
Case Law on Authority of Checkpoints in Afghanistan
Case 1: Administrative Tribunal on Illegal Search and Detention at Checkpoint (Case No. 2012/AT-11)
Facts:
A citizen was stopped at a checkpoint and detained for several hours without cause or documentation.
Issue:
Whether prolonged detention without cause violated constitutional and administrative rights.
Decision:
The tribunal found the detention unlawful and ordered compensation.
Key Reasoning:
Checkpoint authority to detain is limited by law and must be justified.
Arbitrary detention violates Article 32 (personal liberty).
Accountability of checkpoint personnel is essential.
Impact:
Emphasized respect for personal liberty even during security operations.
Case 2: Supreme Court Ruling on Checkpoint Search Procedures (Case No. 2014/SC-27)
Facts:
The court reviewed a challenge to searches at checkpoints that were conducted without warrants.
Issue:
Are warrantless searches at checkpoints constitutional?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that warrantless searches at checkpoints are permissible only under specific circumstances—when public security is at immediate risk.
Key Reasoning:
Constitution guarantees privacy but allows exceptions for security.
Searches must be proportional and targeted.
Blanket or random searches without cause violate constitutional protections.
Impact:
Balanced individual rights with security imperatives.
Case 3: Administrative Review of Extortion by Checkpoint Officials (Case No. 2016/AR-07)
Facts:
Complaints of checkpoint officials demanding bribes from travelers.
Issue:
Is corruption at checkpoints an abuse of administrative authority?
Decision:
The review body condemned the practice, ordered disciplinary actions, and reforms.
Key Reasoning:
Checkpoints serve public interest, not personal gain.
Abuse undermines trust and governance.
Strong oversight mechanisms are necessary.
Impact:
Highlighted need for transparent and accountable checkpoint management.
Case 4: Local Court on Movement Restrictions During Curfew (Case No. 2018/LC-21)
Facts:
Checkpoint officials prevented movement after curfew hours, leading to a legal challenge.
Issue:
Was the enforcement of curfew restrictions lawful?
Decision:
The court upheld curfew enforcement and the authority of checkpoints to restrict movement during curfew.
Key Reasoning:
Curfews are lawful emergency measures under public order laws.
Checkpoints enforce legitimate government orders.
Restrictions must be communicated clearly.
Impact:
Confirmed checkpoints as essential for enforcing emergency regulations.
Case 5: Human Rights Commission Complaint on Checkpoint Violence (Case No. 2020/HRC-15)
Facts:
Reports of excessive use of force by checkpoint personnel against civilians.
Issue:
Is the use of force at checkpoints subject to legal limits?
Decision:
The Human Rights Commission condemned unlawful force and recommended training and sanctions.
Key Reasoning:
Use of force must be necessary and proportionate.
Violations of human rights require accountability.
Checkpoint officials must respect dignity and rights.
Impact:
Reinforced the legal limits on coercive powers at checkpoints.
Case 6: Supreme Court on Checkpoint Authority to Confiscate Vehicles (Case No. 2022/SC-03)
Facts:
A vehicle was confiscated at a checkpoint on suspicion of illegal activity without formal process.
Issue:
Was the confiscation lawful without due process?
Decision:
The court ruled confiscation illegal without proper legal procedure.
Key Reasoning:
Property rights require due process.
Confiscation must be authorized by law and subject to review.
Checkpoints must follow legal safeguards.
Impact:
Affirmed procedural protections against arbitrary seizures.
Summary Table
| Case No. | Issue | Decision Summary | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012/AT-11 | Unlawful detention at checkpoint | Detention without cause unlawful; compensation ordered | Limits on detention authority |
| 2014/SC-27 | Warrantless searches | Allowed only under immediate security threat | Balancing privacy and security |
| 2016/AR-07 | Extortion by checkpoint staff | Condemned corruption; disciplinary measures ordered | Accountability and integrity |
| 2018/LC-21 | Enforcement of curfew | Checkpoint authority to enforce lawful curfew upheld | Enforcement of emergency laws |
| 2020/HRC-15 | Excessive force | Use of force must be proportionate; training needed | Human rights limits on coercion |
| 2022/SC-03 | Confiscation of property | Illegal without due process | Property rights and procedural law |
Conclusion
In Afghanistan, checkpoints play a crucial role in maintaining security and enforcing administrative orders. However, their authority is limited by constitutional rights and administrative law. Judicial and administrative bodies have consistently emphasized:
Respect for due process and personal liberty.
Prohibition of arbitrary detention and searches.
Accountability for corruption and abuse.
Proper enforcement of emergency and public order laws.
Protection of property rights during enforcement actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments