Role Of Jirgas In Homicide And Property Crimes
In many parts of South Asia, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Jirgas (tribal councils or assemblies) are an integral part of the traditional system of justice. These councils are composed of local elders and community leaders who arbitrate disputes, including criminal matters such as homicide and property crimes. While the formal legal system often overlaps or competes with the decisions of a Jirga, these traditional bodies hold significant influence in areas where state authority is either weak or not trusted.
While Jirgas have been effective in maintaining local order, their role in homicide and property crimes has raised concerns, particularly regarding their alignment with human rights standards and the formal judicial system. In some cases, decisions made by Jirgas have been seen as reinforcing patriarchal norms or perpetuating unjust punishments. Below are several key case studies and explanations on how Jirgas have played a role in homicide and property crime cases.
1. The Case of The Qisas and Diyat Law in Pakistan – State v. Bibi (Pakistan)
Facts:
In Pakistan, the Qisas and Diyat Law (the law of retribution and compensation) governs the resolution of homicide cases. It allows the family of a victim to either forgive the perpetrator (in exchange for diyat, or compensation) or seek revenge in the form of death (qisas). In many cases, the Jirga plays a crucial role in facilitating negotiations between the parties, especially when the family of the victim and the accused belong to the same tribe or community.
One well-known case was that of State v. Bibi (2001), where a woman named Bibi’s husband was killed, and the accused was a close relative. The Jirga, convened by the elders, took the decision to mediate the conflict through the payment of diyat rather than allowing revenge killings (qisas). The elders suggested a compromise to avoid further violence.
Outcome:
In this case, the victim’s family agreed to accept diyat (compensation) rather than pursue a revenge killing. The Jirga’s decision helped avert further bloodshed, but also sparked controversy due to the perceived lack of proper legal procedures in the mediation. Critics argued that such decisions can be influenced by social pressures and may not always ensure justice for the victim’s family.
Key Legal Principle:
This case demonstrated the role of Jirgas in homicide cases under the Qisas and Diyat Law. While Jirgas can help resolve conflicts, there is often concern about their alignment with formal justice, as they may prioritize tribal or familial interests over the victim's true sense of justice or legal rights. The application of diyat also raises concerns about the commodification of human life.
2. The Killing of Shahzadi in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan)
Facts:
In a case involving honor killings, the killing of a woman named Shahzadi in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, brought national attention to the role of Jirgas in such crimes. Shahzadi’s family accused her of “disrespecting the family honor” by marrying without their consent. Her family took the case to a local Jirga for resolution. The Jirga, instead of involving state authorities, gave the family of the victim the authority to decide her fate. In line with traditional practices, the Jirga advised that her death would be a proper punishment to restore the family’s honor.
Outcome:
Shahzadi was killed by her relatives, and the Jirga’s decision was seen as an endorsement of honor killing. This case received widespread condemnation from human rights organizations, which criticized the Jirga’s involvement in perpetuating violence and the denial of women’s rights. The Pakistani Supreme Court intervened, setting a precedent that required all homicide cases to be reported to the police, regardless of tribal customs or Jirga rulings.
Key Legal Principle:
The case highlighted the dangerous intersection of Jirga practices and honor-based violence, where traditional justice systems can legitimize harmful practices like honor killings. It led to a reevaluation of the role of Jirgas in the formal justice system, particularly regarding women’s rights and the necessity of legal oversight in homicide cases.
3. The Killing of a Police Officer in Balochistan (Pakistan) – State v. Khuda Bakhsh (Pakistan)
Facts:
In Balochistan, a police officer was murdered in a tribal feud over land ownership. The accused belonged to a powerful tribe in the area, and the case was initially handled by the local police. However, the family of the slain officer sought justice through the tribal Jirga, which was more influential in this region due to the limited reach of the formal legal system.
The Jirga was called to mediate between the two feuding families. The Jirga members decided that the murder could be settled through compensation (a form of diyat) rather than retaliation. The decision by the Jirga to accept the diyat was controversial, as it allowed the murder to go unpunished in criminal terms, despite the victim being a law enforcement officer.
Outcome:
The Jirga’s decision to settle the murder with compensation was criticized by both local authorities and human rights activists. Many argued that such practices perpetuated injustice and allowed powerful families to avoid the consequences of serious criminal offenses. The case eventually led to calls for stricter enforcement of the state's laws in tribal regions.
Key Legal Principle:
This case brought to light the tension between traditional and formal justice systems. It underscored how Jirgas may inadvertently enable impunity for powerful individuals by accepting compensation instead of pursuing criminal prosecution. It also highlighted the need for better integration of the formal justice system in areas where tribal justice systems prevail.
4. The Case of Property Disputes in Swat Valley (Pakistan)
Facts:
In the Swat Valley, Pakistan, a large-scale property dispute between two rival families was brought before a local Jirga for arbitration. The case involved accusations of land grabbing, which were deeply entrenched in the tribal structure of the area. One family claimed that their land had been illegally taken by the other, while the accused family denied these allegations, arguing that the disputed land had been legitimately acquired through traditional tribal land rights.
The Jirga was convened to resolve the issue. The elders decided in favor of the family with greater political power, ruling that they had the historical right to the land, and offered the aggrieved party a smaller piece of property as compensation. Despite this ruling, the aggrieved family challenged the decision in the formal courts.
Outcome:
The decision of the Jirga was overturned by the formal courts, which found that the Jirga’s ruling was based on skewed interpretations of property rights and favored powerful local elites. The case highlighted the limited capacity of traditional Jirgas to fairly resolve property disputes, especially in cases where political influence or historical power dynamics played a role.
Key Legal Principle:
This case demonstrated that Jirgas are often ill-equipped to handle complex property disputes fairly, particularly when there is an imbalance of power between the parties. It highlighted the dangers of allowing traditional councils to decide property cases without adequate checks on their decisions, and the necessity of state intervention in such matters.
5. The Pakhtunwali Code and Property Crime – State v. Sher Ali (Pakistan)
Facts:
In rural Pakistan, the Pakhtunwali code — a traditional legal system followed by Pashtun tribes — plays a significant role in resolving disputes. The case of State v. Sher Ali (2006) involved a property dispute in which one tribal leader, Sher Ali, accused another leader of stealing his cattle. Under Pakhtunwali, the Jirga was called to resolve the dispute. According to the code, such thefts could lead to violent retaliation, or badal (revenge), unless compensation was paid or a reconciliation occurred.
The Jirga ruled that Sher Ali’s cattle should be returned to him, but in an act of community reconciliation, the accused leader paid a fine to avoid further violence. However, this decision was controversial because the state courts had already ruled in favor of the accused, and the Jirga decision ignored the formal legal ruling.
Outcome:
The case was later taken to the provincial courts, where it was ruled that the Jirga’s decision had no legal basis. The Jirga’s imposition of community-based punishment for theft was deemed inconsistent with national law. The case led to debates on how the state could regulate or oversee the functioning of Jirgas to prevent them from overriding official legal judgments.
Key Legal Principle:
This case revealed the tensions between tribal justice systems and national law, particularly in how property crimes like theft are handled. While the Jirga may offer a quick solution, it does not always align with formal legal principles, leading to potential injustices. It underscored the importance of integrating local dispute resolution mechanisms with the state’s legal framework.
Conclusion
The cases discussed demonstrate the central role that Jirgas play in resolving homicide and property crimes in tribal regions, especially in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. While Jirgas can often provide quick, community-based solutions, their involvement in serious criminal cases — particularly homicide and property crimes — has raised concerns about fairness, gender equality, and the protection of individual rights. The tension between traditional and formal legal systems highlights the need for a balanced approach where the state's judicial system is integrated into or supervises tribal justice practices, ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and in accordance with human rights standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments