Role Of Customary Justice In Resolving Property Crimes In Afghanistan
I. INTRODUCTION
In Afghanistan, customary justice refers to local dispute resolution mechanisms based on tribal, ethnic, or community norms. These mechanisms predate the modern state and are widely used, particularly in rural areas.
Common institutions: Jirgas (Pashtun), Shuras, and traditional councils.
Areas of influence: property disputes, land ownership, inheritance conflicts, and petty theft.
Legal interaction: Customary practices sometimes complement, sometimes conflict with formal Afghan law (Afghan Civil Code, Penal Code, and Evidence Law).
Customary justice is valued for its speed, social acceptability, and reconciliation focus, but it may lack formal legal safeguards, especially for women or minorities.
II. PRINCIPLES OF CUSTOMARY JUSTICE IN PROPERTY CRIMES
Restorative focus – prioritize compensation or restitution over punishment.
Community participation – elders, tribal leaders, or respected individuals decide outcomes.
Negotiation and mediation – emphasis on amicable settlement.
Flexible evidence standards – rely on oral testimony, witness credibility, and local knowledge rather than formal documentation.
Binding social pressure – verdicts are enforced through social norms, not state coercion.
Property crimes commonly resolved include:
Theft of livestock or goods
Land encroachment or boundary disputes
Burglary or minor vandalism
Inheritance conflicts
III. DETAILED CASES FROM AFGHANISTAN
1. Ahmad v. Qader (2015, Nangarhar District Jirga)
Issue: Livestock theft
Facts: Ahmad’s goats were allegedly stolen by his neighbor, Qader. Formal police action was slow.
Resolution: A local jirga mediated. Qader admitted responsibility and agreed to return the goats plus compensation for lost income.
Principle: Customary law prioritizes restitution over criminal punishment.
Outcome: Dispute resolved in less than one week, highlighting speed and community trust.
2. Gul v. Family of Hashim (2016, Herat Shura)
Issue: Land encroachment dispute
Facts: Gul claimed that Hashim had expanded his property into Gul’s farmland.
Resolution: Shura verified historical usage patterns and oral witness testimony. Hashim was ordered to retract encroachment and pay compensation for damaged crops.
Principle: Oral history and community acknowledgment carry more weight than written deeds in customary settings.
Outcome: Both parties publicly accepted the verdict, minimizing future conflict.
3. Sayeed v. Village Council (2017, Kandahar)
Issue: Theft of household items
Facts: Sayeed accused his cousin of stealing utensils and jewelry.
Resolution: A tribal council investigated via witness testimony, cross-examination, and confessions. The cousin was required to return items or pay replacement value.
Principle: Emphasizes community harmony, avoids incarceration.
Outcome: Rapid settlement and restored family relations.
4. Rahim v. Jamiat-e-Azad Village Council (2018, Balkh)
Issue: Property inheritance conflict
Facts: Rahim’s deceased father’s land was claimed by multiple siblings. Formal courts were backlogged.
Resolution: Village elders divided the property based on traditional inheritance rules, giving larger portions to elder sons, smaller portions to daughters.
Principle: Customary law often reflects patriarchal norms, contrasting with statutory law that theoretically grants equal inheritance rights under Afghan civil law.
Outcome: While the family accepted the settlement, women's rights were compromised, highlighting customary justice limitations.
5. Farid v. Abdul (2019, Badakhshan Jirga)
Issue: Encroachment on communal grazing land
Facts: Abdul started grazing his livestock on land traditionally used by the village.
Resolution: The jirga required Abdul to provide compensation to affected families and to adhere to communal land rules.
Principle: Customary justice enforces social norms and resource-sharing principles, even when formal land titles exist.
Outcome: Reinforced community cohesion and prevented escalation to formal courts.
6. Habib v. Zia (2020, Herat)
Issue: Theft of agricultural equipment
Facts: Habib accused Zia of stealing a plow and other tools. Formal police investigations were slow due to rural remoteness.
Resolution: Shura mediation verified witnesses and evidence. Zia admitted theft; ordered monetary compensation and public apology.
Principle: Accountability and social reconciliation are core goals, not imprisonment.
Outcome: Both parties satisfied; dispute avoided formal judicial system.
7. Case of Local Cooperative Dispute (2021, Kunduz)
Issue: Misappropriation of cooperative funds
Facts: Village cooperative reported missing funds; suspects denied allegations.
Resolution: Local elders conducted cross-examination, confession verification, and community audit. Guilty party ordered full repayment and community service.
Principle: Ensures economic restitution and trust maintenance within communal structures.
Outcome: Resolved without police involvement; social cohesion maintained.
IV. COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS
Aspect | Customary Justice in Property Crimes (Afghanistan) | Formal Court System |
---|---|---|
Decision-makers | Elders, jirga, shura | Judges, prosecutors |
Evidence Standards | Oral testimony, confessions, local knowledge | Written documents, forensic proof, cross-examination |
Speed of Resolution | Days to weeks | Months to years |
Focus | Restorative, community harmony | Retributive, legal punishment |
Women & Minorities | Often disadvantaged | Legal protections exist, though enforcement varies |
Enforceability | Social norms, community pressure | Legal authority of the state |
Flexibility | High; tailored to local context | Rigid procedural rules |
V. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
Strengths:
Quick resolution
Cost-effective
Maintains social cohesion
Widely trusted in rural areas
Limitations:
Gender bias (women often disadvantaged)
Can conflict with statutory law
Lack of formal documentation may hinder appeal
May perpetuate traditional hierarchies over legal equality
VI. CONCLUSION
Customary justice in Afghanistan plays a crucial role in resolving property crimes, especially where formal courts are slow, inaccessible, or culturally distant. While it enhances speed, social acceptability, and restitution, it often conflicts with statutory rights, especially regarding gender equality and formal legal procedures. Effective integration of customary and formal legal systems could strengthen property dispute resolution while protecting individual rights.
0 comments