Corruption in Kabul Municipality
Corruption in Kabul Municipality
Case 1: Embezzlement of Billboard Tax Revenues (2007)
What happened:
The Kabul Municipality collected taxes from billboards (advertisements on roadside boards) in Kabul.
Two conflicting reports on how much was collected: one official source said 33 million Afghanis, another said 24 million Afghanis
Independent counting by journalists of the number of billboards and application of the tax formula showed there was a shortfall of ~17 million Afghanis. That is, money that should have been collected into government funds was apparently missing.
Allegations/Issues:
Lack of transparency (no accurate, consistent record-keeping about how many billboards, how much revenue).
Possible embezzlement or diversion of funds.
Failure of oversight: the Ministry of Finance claimed that municipalities are independent and their internal revenues/expenditures are their own business. Also, insufficient supervision by inspection/control offices.
Legal/Institutional Response:
No clear record of prosecution in the sources I saw.
The issue was reported, but the municipal or judicial authorities did not seem to fully account for or recover the missing revenue. The lack of transparency or clarity suggests weak enforcement.
Case 2: Summons of Two Former Kabul Mayors (Land & Tax Irregularities)
What happened:
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) in Afghanistan summoned two ex-mayors of Kabul – Mohammad Yunus Nawandish and Rohullah Aman – on allegations of corruption connected with tax collection, spending of municipal budgets, and land distribution irregularities.
The allegations cover a period of 13 years in the Kabul Municipality.
Allegations/Issues:
Tax collection irregularities: money not properly accounted or collected.
Land distribution irregularities: high potential for favoritism, improper allocation of municipal lands.
Misuse or misapplication of municipal budget spending.
Legal/Institutional Response:
Formal investigations initiated by the AGO.
Ex-Mayor Nawandish responded to the summons; Rohullah Aman had not yet done so at the time of reporting. TOLOnews
It’s not clear from these reports whether the investigation has led to a court verdict or convictions. The process appears to be in investigative stage. (As of those reports.)
Case 3: Road Funds Embezzlement / Irregular Construction Projects (2013)
What happened:
Complaints were made about multiple road construction projects in Kabul (e.g. Qala Zaman Khan project) where funds intended for construction either weren’t spent properly, or were diverted.
The amount of alleged embezzlement in one of the reported cases was around 48 million Afghanis.
Specifically, in the Qala Zaman Khan road project and associated work, there were allegations of non-completion, substandard work (cracks), wrong budgeting (mixing charges across projects).
Allegations/Issues:
Poor quality work despite payment: raises issue of corruption in contracting and monitoring.
Misuse of budgets – wrong projects being charged or misallocation.
Lack of accountability for contractors and municipal officials.
Legal/Institutional Response:
The AG’s Office has taken up investigations into these projects.
Some complaints came via residents, and via oversight / anti-corruption organizations. But public reporting doesn’t show final judgments or whether the embezzled funds were recovered or convicted persons punished in these specific projects (as of those reports).
Case 4: Convicted Kabul Mayor – Abdul Ahad Sehebi (2009)
What happened:
Mayor Abdul Ahad Sehebi was convicted of corruption: specifically for leasing a strip of land in the city to a businessman in exchange for a bribe of ~$17,000.
Also, allegations involving failure to account for millions of dollars intended for reconstruction projects.
Allegations/Issues:
Abuse of office (mayor’s power) to grant contracts / leases in exchange for personal gain.
Lack of transparency and oversight: even after conviction, Sehebi refused to step down; authorities had trouble enforcing the sentence.
Legal/Institutional Response:
Sehebi was sentenced by a court to four years in jail.
Stripped of title of mayor.
However, enforcement was weak: he refused to leave office; there was police protection at City Hall; institutional refusal or inability to enforce the judicial decision was problematic.
Case 5: Fuel Scam in Municipal Vehicles (Recent Report)
What happened:
Acting Mayor Abdullah Habibzai reported that staff were misusing municipal cars to claim for fuel based on fake or exaggerated usage. Examples include:
Removal of GPS units from vehicles and placing them in other vehicles so that kilometers claimed are higher.
Fake invoices: municipal employees asking vendors to put inflated prices on invoices to claim more.
Allegations/Issues:
Fraud in procurement and fuel accounting.
Weak monitoring and internal control systems (e.g. GPS units installed, but staff circumventing them).
Legal/Institutional Response:
The municipality says it has referred about 200 people to judicial or legal institutions over corruption suspicions.
It’s unclear how many have been formally charged or convicted in these fuel fraud cases (in the sources seen).
Case 6: Rigged Tenders and Favoritism Under Taliban Municipality (2025)
What happened:
Reports from 2025 describe systemic corruption in procurement projects under the Kabul Municipality under Taliban administration.
Allegations include:
Tender announcements and eligibility criteria being modified after the fact (or arbitrarily) to favour certain companies connected to municipality leadership.
Companies close to the mayor or municipality insiders being given preference, even if they don’t satisfy original tender conditions. If they don’t win early, tender documents are changed to allow them to win.
Decline in transparency in tendering; bypassing of standard legal procedures.
Allegations/Issues:
Conflict of interest and cronyism.
Violation of procurement laws (if such laws are supposed to exist) and lack of oversight.
Erosion of accountability and increase of corrupt capture of public contracting.
Legal/Institutional Response:
These are reported allegations; at least the reporting sources mention oversight groups, journalists, but no publicly known court ruling (as of the report) that has clearly penalized those responsible.
Patterns, Legal Implications & Institutional Weaknesses
From these cases, several themes emerge which illustrate why corruption has persisted in Kabul Municipality, and what legal/institutional issues accompany these corrupt acts.
Weak Enforcement & Accountability:
Even when mayors are convicted (Sehebi), enforcement is partial, with refusal to step down and lack of institutional capacity to remove them.
Investigations initiated, but fewer public reports on final judgments or recovery of stolen funds.
Lack of Transparency:
Discrepancies in revenue reporting (billboard tax case).
Lack of consistent records; differing figures given by different municipal departments.
Contracting / tendering processes not transparent, criteria changed.
Procurement Fraud & Tender Abuse:
Manipulating tenders to favour connected companies.
Changing tender criteria post-announcement.
Substandard works done or projects not completed, while funds are paid.
Misuse of Municipal Assets & Resources:
Vehicle and fuel scams.
Leasing of land in exchange for bribes.
Improper or unlawful use of municipal powers in land distribution.
Institutional & Political Barriers:
Powerful individuals allegedly involved, making enforcement difficult.
Lack of robust oversight from anti-corruption agencies or courts.
Better performance in investigations than in final accountability or systemic reform.
Legal & Case Law Aspects
Although many cases are journalistic or investigative reports, legal proceedings have happened, e.g., in Sehebi’s case of conviction, in the summons of former mayors by the AGO.
The law in Afghanistan, for example, includes anti‑corruption legislation, criminal procedure for corruption, and oversight bodies like the High Office of Oversight and Anti‑Corruption (HOOAC), the Attorney General’s Office, and the Independent Joint Anti‑Corruption Monitoring and Evaluation Committee. These institutions are supposed to investigate and prosecute corruption. The weakness lies often in lack of capacity, political will, or enforcement.
Sometimes the legal framework is undermined by “pardoning” or de facto forgiveness: e.g., under the Taliban’s regime, statements that past corruption is being “pardoned” for peace have raised concerns about impunity.
Conclusion
Corruption in Kabul Municipality appears in many forms: embezzlement, misuse of funds/assets, tender manipulation, fuel and resource fraud, illegal land deals.
Legal cases show that although there are laws and courts to handle corruption, enforcement is inconsistent.
Major lessons include that institutional oversight, transparency, strong legal frameworks, and political will are critical to reduce corruption.
RELATED Blog
0 comments