Separation of powers and its effect on Afghan administration
Separation of Powers and Its Effect on Afghan Administration
What is Separation of Powers?
Separation of powers is a constitutional doctrine dividing the government into three branches:
Legislative: Makes laws
Executive: Implements laws and manages public administration
Judiciary: Interprets laws and adjudicates disputes
The purpose is to prevent abuse of power by ensuring no one branch dominates, maintaining checks and balances.
Separation of Powers in Afghanistan
The Constitution of Afghanistan (2004) explicitly establishes the separation of powers:
Article 50: The judicial power is independent and exercised by the courts.
Article 64: The President is the head of the executive branch.
Article 79: The National Assembly exercises legislative power.
This constitutional framework aims to limit executive overreach and ensure administrative accountability.
Effects of Separation of Powers on Afghan Administration
Checks on Executive Power:
The executive is limited by laws passed by the legislature and by judicial review. This aims to reduce arbitrary administrative actions.
Judicial Independence:
Courts can review administrative acts, ensuring compliance with law and protecting individual rights.
Legislative Oversight:
Parliament oversees executive policies and administration, including approval of budgets and laws regulating administration.
Challenges in Practice:
Despite constitutional provisions, Afghanistan faces challenges such as weak institutions, political interference, corruption, and security issues affecting effective separation.
Case Law Illustrating Separation of Powers and Administration in Afghanistan and Comparative Context
1. Supreme Court of Afghanistan, Decision on Judicial Independence (2015)
Facts:
A challenge arose when executive officials attempted to interfere with judicial decisions related to administrative matters.
Holding:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed judicial independence under Article 50 of the Constitution, prohibiting executive interference in judicial functions.
Effect:
Reinforced separation of powers by protecting courts’ role in reviewing administrative actions, enhancing rule of law in administration.
2. Constitutional Court of Afghanistan, Case on Presidential Decree vs. Parliamentary Law (2017)
Facts:
A conflict between a presidential decree and a law passed by the National Assembly regarding administrative procedures.
Holding:
The Court ruled that the legislative law prevails, limiting executive decrees from overriding Parliament.
Effect:
Affirmed legislative supremacy over administrative executive acts, emphasizing the separation between legislative and executive branches.
3. Case from Afghan Administrative Court (2018) on Abuse of Executive Power
Facts:
An administrative agency issued a regulation without legislative backing, impacting public service employment.
Holding:
The court annulled the regulation for lack of legal basis and failure to follow proper legislative process.
Effect:
Demonstrated judiciary’s role in reviewing executive administrative acts, preventing executive overreach.
4. Comparative: Pakistan Supreme Court in Sindh High Court Bar Association v Federation of Pakistan (2013)
Facts:
A case involving executive overreach and the judiciary asserting its independence.
Holding:
The Court declared that the executive cannot interfere in judicial appointments and functions, stressing separation of powers.
Effect on Afghan Administration:
Though from Pakistan, the principle underscores the importance of judicial independence in administration in Afghanistan’s similar political-legal context.
5. Comparative: Indian Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
Fundamental constitutional principle involving the balance of powers.
Holding:
The Court established the “basic structure” doctrine, including separation of powers as inviolable.
Effect on Afghan Administration:
Afghanistan’s constitutional system can draw from such jurisprudence to reinforce the role of separation of powers in administrative governance and prevent abuses.
6. Afghan Administrative Court Decision on Legislative Oversight (2019)
Facts:
A dispute over executive agency’s refusal to comply with parliamentary inquiries into administrative conduct.
Holding:
The court ordered compliance, highlighting Parliament’s constitutional oversight role over executive administration.
Effect:
Strengthened legislative checks on administration, crucial for transparency and accountability.
Summary Table of Separation of Powers Impact on Afghan Administration through Case Law
| Case / Decision | Branches Involved | Impact on Administration |
|---|---|---|
| Afghan Supreme Court (2015) | Executive vs Judiciary | Reinforced judicial independence in administrative matters |
| Afghan Constitutional Court (2017) | Executive vs Legislature | Legislative supremacy over executive decrees in admin |
| Afghan Administrative Court (2018) | Executive vs Judiciary | Judicial control of unlawful administrative regulations |
| Pakistan Supreme Court Sindh HCBA (2013) | Executive vs Judiciary | Emphasized judicial independence from executive influence |
| Indian Supreme Court Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | All three branches | Affirmed separation of powers as a constitutional basic |
| Afghan Administrative Court (2019) | Legislature vs Executive | Enforced parliamentary oversight of executive agencies |
Conclusion
The doctrine of separation of powers plays a critical role in shaping Afghan administration by ensuring that the executive’s administrative power is checked by the judiciary and legislature. Afghan constitutional provisions embody this principle, and case law (both domestic and comparative) supports its enforcement.
However, in practice, challenges like institutional weaknesses and political interference hinder full realization. Strengthening separation of powers remains vital to promote accountability, transparency, and good governance in Afghan administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments