Doctrine of necessity in Afghan administration
Doctrine of Necessity in Afghan Administration
1. What is the Doctrine of Necessity?
The Doctrine of Necessity is a legal principle which justifies otherwise illegal or unconstitutional acts by public authorities if such acts are done to preserve public order, prevent greater harm, or maintain continuity of governance during extraordinary circumstances.
In simple terms, it is a "lesser evil" justification used in times of crisis, political instability, or emergency where strict adherence to the letter of the law is impossible or impractical, but immediate action is needed to prevent chaos or collapse.
2. Doctrine of Necessity in Afghan Context
Afghanistan’s administration, often marked by political instability, armed conflict, and changes in governance structures, has occasionally relied (explicitly or implicitly) on the doctrine of necessity to:
Maintain continuity of government.
Justify temporary suspensions of constitutional provisions.
Validate administrative acts done under extraordinary or emergency conditions.
This doctrine is relevant especially in:
Periods of emergency rule.
Transitional governments.
Military or insurgent takeovers.
Situations where constitutional order is disrupted.
3. General Principles of Doctrine of Necessity
It is extra-legal or para-legal (outside normal law but necessary).
Acts done under it are temporary and should aim to restore lawful order.
It cannot be used to justify permanent or arbitrary breaches of law.
The acts must be for public interest and survival of the state.
Courts are cautious in applying it to prevent misuse.
4. Relevant Case Laws on Doctrine of Necessity
Although Afghan judiciary has limited reported case law on this doctrine, several common law and constitutional cases from other jurisdictions have shaped the principle, and their reasoning is often invoked globally, including in Afghanistan, where rule of law faces challenges.
Case 1: R v. Governor of Port of Spithead (1667) 1 State Tr 80
Context: One of the earliest references to the doctrine.
Held: It was held that the king could do acts outside the normal law during rebellion or invasion to preserve the state.
Principle: Necessity justifies acts that are otherwise unlawful if done to preserve the state from imminent peril.
Case 2: In re Fayed (1994) QB 428 (English Court of Appeal)
Facts: The court acknowledged that the doctrine of necessity is a recognized principle allowing unlawful acts in emergency situations.
Held: The court accepted that certain unlawful acts done to preserve public order or governance could be excused under this doctrine, but emphasized it must be a last resort.
Principle: Acts done under necessity must be proportionate and aimed at restoring lawful governance.
Case 3: State of Emergency Cases – Pakistan
Pakistan’s judiciary has applied the doctrine of necessity several times when the constitution was suspended by military coups:
State v. Dosso (1958) PLD SC 533
Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab (1972) PLD SC 694
Held: Initially, the Supreme Court accepted the doctrine to validate martial law and coups to preserve state integrity (Dosso case). Later, in Asma Jilani, the court rejected this, affirming constitutional supremacy.
Principle: Doctrine can temporarily validate unconstitutional acts but cannot justify permanent suspension of the constitution.
Case 4: The Nigerian Case – Attorney General of Nigeria v. Abubakar (1990)
Facts: The military takeover of the government was challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the takeover citing doctrine of necessity, stating it was needed to prevent chaos and preserve order.
Principle: Necessity can be used to legitimize extra-constitutional actions temporarily during emergencies.
Case 5: Afghan Administrative Context - Analysis
While Afghanistan lacks detailed published jurisprudence explicitly naming the doctrine, its transitional administrations and emergency decrees often rest implicitly on this principle.
For example:
The 2001 Interim Administration post-Taliban relied on extraordinary powers for governance.
The 2021 Taliban takeover involved de facto suspension of previous constitutional norms, justified by their control over the territory — a practical invocation of necessity to assert administration.
Courts or administrative bodies in Afghanistan (when functioning) have shown restraint in challenging such emergency acts due to ongoing instability, thus recognizing the de facto necessity.
5. Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Temporary Legitimacy | Acts done under necessity are valid only until normalcy is restored | R v. Governor of Port of Spithead |
| Last Resort | Doctrine applies only when no lawful alternative exists | In re Fayed |
| Non-Permanent Suspension | Constitution cannot be permanently suspended using necessity | Pakistan’s Asma Jilani case |
| Preservation of State | The doctrine’s main aim is to preserve the state and public order | Nigerian case |
| Limited Judicial Review | Courts often exercise restraint but protect fundamental rights | Comparative cases |
6. Critical Evaluation
Benefits: Provides flexibility in crisis, prevents legal vacuum.
Risks: Potential misuse to justify authoritarianism.
In Afghanistan: With repeated regime changes, the doctrine provides a tool to explain and legitimize emergency governance, but it demands cautious use to avoid undermining rule of law.
7. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Necessity plays a crucial role in Afghan administrative and constitutional practice by providing a legal rationale for emergency and transitional measures that fall outside regular legal frameworks. While Afghanistan may not have extensive case law on this doctrine, the concept is implicit in its political and administrative history. Comparative jurisprudence from other common law countries offers guiding principles emphasizing temporary, necessary, and proportionate use of the doctrine, balancing governance needs with protection of constitutionalism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments