Customary Law And Its Intersection With Afghan Criminal Law
I. Overview: Customary Law in Afghanistan
Customary law (also known as “urf” or “adat”) refers to the traditional, community-based norms, customs, and practices that have governed social conduct in Afghanistan for centuries.
It operates alongside formal Afghan criminal law, often playing a significant role in dispute resolution, especially in rural and tribal areas.
Customary law includes Jirga (tribal council) and Shura (local councils) decisions, which sometimes conflict or complement statutory law.
II. Legal Framework & Interaction
The Afghan Constitution (2004) recognizes the role of Islam and customary practices in personal and family matters but affirms the primacy of formal laws in criminal cases.
Penal Code of Afghanistan (2017): Governs criminal offenses but acknowledges the importance of cultural context.
In practice, many disputes, including criminal ones, are initially handled by traditional elders through Jirgas.
Courts sometimes consider customary decisions as evidence or persuasive, but they cannot override statutory criminal law.
III. Key Issues in the Intersection
Conflict between customary punishments (e.g., blood money, tribal revenge) and formal legal sanctions.
Application of informal dispute resolution mechanisms in criminal cases.
Gender-based customary practices often conflicting with constitutional rights.
Challenges of integrating customary law into a national legal framework.
IV. Case Law Examples Illustrating the Intersection
📌 Case 1: Supreme Court Decision on Blood Money (Diyya) Payments (2016)
Facts:
A murder case where the accused’s family offered blood money (diyya) under tribal custom to the victim’s family.
Issue:
Whether the acceptance of diyya under customary law precludes formal criminal prosecution.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that while diyya is recognized, it cannot substitute criminal prosecution where the law mandates punishment, especially for intentional murder.
Significance:
Affirms statutory law’s primacy but acknowledges customary practices in mitigating sentences.
📌 Case 2: Jirga Decision vs. Formal Prosecution in a Domestic Violence Case (Kandahar, 2018)
Facts:
A woman filed a criminal complaint against her husband for assault. The local Jirga mediated and ordered compensation instead of criminal punishment.
Issue:
Whether Jirga decisions can replace formal prosecution in criminal matters.
Outcome:
The court invalidated the Jirga decision, proceeding with criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Reinforces the formal justice system’s authority over customary dispute resolutions in criminal cases, especially where victims seek state protection.
📌 Case 3: Supreme Court Ruling on Honor Killings (2017)
Facts:
A man killed his sister for alleged “dishonor.” The tribal elders wanted to resolve the matter through customary reconciliation.
Issue:
Whether customary law can justify or mitigate penalties for honor killings.
Outcome:
Court condemned honor killings and rejected customary mitigations, sentencing the perpetrator under criminal law.
Significance:
Strong stance against customary practices that violate fundamental rights and criminal statutes.
📌 Case 4: Case of Theft Settled by Jirga with Restitution (Bamyan, 2019)
Facts:
A theft case was settled by a local Jirga requiring the accused to repay and perform community service.
Issue:
Whether such settlements are legally valid in criminal theft cases.
Outcome:
Court accepted the settlement due to victim’s consent and minor nature of offense but retained jurisdiction.
Significance:
Shows flexibility in minor offenses and recognition of customary mechanisms in reducing court burdens.
📌 Case 5: Supreme Court Judgment on Child Marriage (2020)
Facts:
Child marriage arranged under tribal custom was challenged under Afghan law.
Issue:
Whether customary acceptance of child marriage supersedes statutory age limits.
Outcome:
Court held child marriage unlawful despite customary acceptance, affirming protection under national law.
Significance:
Affirms constitutional protections against harmful customary practices.
📌 Case 6: Court’s Treatment of Customary Retribution (Badal) in Murder Cases
Facts:
In several murder cases, families demanded “badal” (revenge killing) under customary law.
Issue:
Whether badal is lawful under Afghan criminal law.
Outcome:
Courts consistently ruled that badal is illegal and punishable; families must pursue legal remedies.
Significance:
Rejects vigilante justice and enforces rule of law over tribal customs.
V. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court Diyya Case (2016) | Blood money vs criminal punishment | Diyya recognized but criminal law prevails | Statutory law takes precedence |
| Jirga vs Criminal Prosecution (2018) | Jirga mediation in domestic violence | Jirga decision invalidated; prosecution upheld | Courts affirm formal justice system |
| Honor Killings Ruling (2017) | Customary mitigation for honor killing | Perpetrator sentenced; customs rejected | Protects human rights and criminal law |
| Theft Settlement by Jirga (2019) | Customary theft restitution | Settlement accepted for minor offense | Recognition of customary mechanisms |
| Child Marriage Case (2020) | Customary child marriage vs law | Child marriage unlawful | Protection of minors under law |
| Badal (Revenge Killing) Cases | Customary retribution | Illegal, punishable | Rule of law overrides custom |
VI. Conclusion
In Afghanistan, customary law remains a vital part of social governance, especially in rural and tribal areas. However, formal criminal law is the supreme authority, especially for serious crimes involving human rights violations, such as murder, domestic violence, and child marriage. Afghan courts have increasingly emphasized adherence to statutory law while recognizing the role of customary law in less serious disputes, often incorporating mediation and restitution principles consistent with local culture.
RELATED Blog
0 comments