Witness Protection Mechanisms In Afghanistan And Their Effectiveness
1. Introduction
Witness protection in Afghanistan has historically been one of the most challenging aspects of the justice system. Due to ongoing insecurity, weak institutions, and the influence of armed groups, witnesses often face threats, intimidation, and violence.
Afghanistan’s legal framework attempts to provide some level of protection through provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC 2014), the Law on the Organization and Jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s Office (2018), and certain anti-terrorism and anti-corruption laws. However, implementation has been weak, and effectiveness remains limited.
2. Legal Framework
Criminal Procedure Code (2014) – Articles 74–77
These articles empower prosecutors and courts to protect witnesses by:
Keeping identities confidential.
Holding closed hearings.
Providing relocation or police escort if necessary.
Anti-Corruption and Counter-Narcotics Laws –
These laws provide for temporary protective measures, including housing in safe locations, anonymous testimony, and escorting witnesses during trials.
Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and Ministry of Interior –
Both are responsible for ensuring protection, but there is no independent Witness Protection Agency, unlike in Western systems (e.g., the U.S. WITSEC program).
3. Challenges in Implementation
Lack of funding and infrastructure for safe houses or relocation.
Fear of retaliation from warlords, Taliban, or corrupt officials.
Insufficient confidentiality during investigations.
No long-term protection for witnesses after trials.
Judicial corruption and intimidation of prosecutors and judges.
4. Case Law and Detailed Examples
Below are six Afghan cases illustrating how witness protection mechanisms have been applied (or failed) in practice:
Case 1: The Kabul Bank Corruption Case (2014)
Court: Anti-Corruption Tribunal, Kabul
Summary:
This case involved high-level corruption in the Kabul Bank, where hundreds of millions of dollars were embezzled. Key witnesses included bank employees, auditors, and insiders.
Witness Protection Issues:
Witnesses faced direct threats from powerful defendants with political connections.
The Attorney General’s Office attempted to conceal the identities of certain witnesses during early hearings.
However, due to media leaks, several names were revealed, and two witnesses fled to Pakistan.
Outcome:
Although the court convicted Sherkhan Farnood and other top officials, witnesses’ safety was compromised.
This case showed that Afghanistan lacked a secure witness relocation system, and protection depended mostly on individual prosecutors’ efforts.
Effectiveness:
Minimal — the case revealed systemic weaknesses and the absence of an institutional protection program.
Case 2: The Logar Province Child Abuse Scandal (2019)
Court: Provincial Court of Logar and AGO, Kabul
Summary:
Several teachers and local officials were accused of sexual abuse of schoolboys in Logar Province. Human rights activists exposed the abuse, and local witnesses came forward.
Witness Protection Issues:
Witnesses received threats from local authorities and militant groups.
Two human rights activists were detained by the NDS (National Directorate of Security) for exposing the case.
Witnesses’ families had to flee the province due to fear of retribution.
Measures Taken:
Temporary police escorts and transfer of witnesses to Kabul were provided for questioning.
There was no long-term protection, and many witnesses later refused to testify.
Effectiveness:
Partial — the case showed how lack of institutional witness protection leads to silencing of victims and obstruction of justice.
Case 3: The Farkhunda Malikzada Lynching Case (2015)
Court: Kabul Primary Court and Appeals Court
Summary:
Farkhunda Malikzada, falsely accused of burning a Quran, was beaten and killed by a mob in Kabul. Several witnesses captured the incident on video and later testified.
Witness Protection Issues:
Witnesses faced intimidation from mobs and religious extremists.
The prosecution relied heavily on video evidence to avoid exposing human witnesses.
Some police officers refused to testify out of fear of reprisals.
Measures Taken:
The court used recorded testimony and allowed anonymity for witnesses in later proceedings.
Nonetheless, many accused were released on appeal due to "lack of live testimony."
Effectiveness:
Limited — while video evidence substituted for witness statements, fear prevented open testimony, showing the deep-rooted insecurity in high-profile religious cases.
Case 4: Taliban Massacre Case, Kunduz (2016)
Court: Anti-Terrorism Court, Kabul
Summary:
The Taliban attacked Kunduz city, killing dozens of civilians. Witnesses were survivors, medical staff, and local police.
Witness Protection Issues:
Taliban threats were immediate and deadly; witnesses’ names appeared in insurgent communication networks.
Prosecutors requested anonymous testimony and closed hearings under Article 75 of the CPC.
The Ministry of Interior provided temporary housing and police escort for three key witnesses.
Effectiveness:
Moderate — temporary measures allowed conviction of several Taliban members, but protection ceased after trial, and at least one witness later fled the country.
Case 5: Human Trafficking Network Case, Herat (2018)
Court: Herat Appellate Court
Summary:
A cross-border trafficking ring was prosecuted for smuggling women into Iran. The main witnesses were trafficking survivors.
Witness Protection Issues:
Victims faced threats from traffickers’ families and local militias.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) assisted in relocating victims temporarily.
Afghan authorities lacked any independent witness protection plan.
Measures Taken:
The court conducted closed hearings and allowed anonymous statements.
Safe shelters were arranged by NGOs, not the government.
Effectiveness:
Relatively better — international cooperation improved short-term security, but dependence on NGOs highlights the state’s inability to protect witnesses sustainably.
Case 6: The Khost Honor Killing Case (2020)
Court: Khost Provincial Court
Summary:
A young woman was killed by relatives for alleged moral misconduct. Her friend, who witnessed the crime, agreed to testify.
Witness Protection Issues:
The witness faced family and tribal retaliation.
Local elders pressured the court to withdraw the case.
Despite requests, no relocation or safe housing was provided.
Outcome:
The witness recanted her statement due to fear.
Defendants were acquitted, illustrating complete failure of witness protection in rural areas.
Effectiveness:
Very low — tribal influence and weak enforcement rendered the system ineffective.
5. Evaluation of Effectiveness
| Aspect | Legal Provision | Practical Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality of Witness Identity | Provided under CPC Art. 75 | Often breached by leaks or local influence |
| Closed Hearings | Legally possible | Rarely used due to lack of security coordination |
| Relocation or Safe Houses | Provided theoretically | No official infrastructure; ad hoc arrangements |
| Police Escort | Sometimes available | Short-term only |
| Support from NGOs / IOM | Supplementary | Works in specific trafficking or gender cases |
6. Comparative Effectiveness
Compared to Western systems (e.g., the U.S. WITSEC or UK’s Witness Protection Service), Afghan mechanisms remain rudimentary. Western programs offer:
Legal identity change
Financial support
Permanent relocation
Independent witness protection agencies
In Afghanistan, protection is temporary, reactive, and inconsistent. Witnesses often must flee the country or withdraw testimony, undermining the credibility of the justice system.
7. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s witness protection mechanisms, though present in law, are ineffective in practice. Most witnesses rely on personal networks or international NGOs for safety.
For meaningful reform, Afghanistan would need to establish:
An independent Witness Protection Authority,
Funding and infrastructure for safe houses, and
Coordination with international partners to ensure long-term protection.
Without such reforms, justice remains compromised, particularly in cases involving terrorism, corruption, gender-based violence, or organized crime.
RELATED Blog
0 comments