Chief Justice of Afghanistan

The office of chief justice of Afghanistan developed alongside the modern Afghan judiciary during the twentieth century, particularly following the establishment of centralized state judicial institutions under successive Afghan constitutions. Under the 2004 constitution, the chief justice served as the head of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial organ of the state.^[3]

In English-language, the office is commonly rendered as "Chief Justice of Afghanistan". In official Taliban-era usage, the officeholder is also referred to as "Qazi al-Qudat" (Judge of Judges) and "Head of the Supreme Court of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan."^[10][11]

The title suggests both civil and Islamic judicial traditions that have historically influenced the Afghan legal system. The office of chief justice combined administrative authority over the courts with religious and constitutional functions rooted in both state law and sharia.^[12]

In August 2021, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan collapsed following the withdrawal of foreign military forces and the subsequent Taliban takeover, which subsequently re-established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. After returning to power, the Taliban abolished the constitution and legislation of the former republic while retaining and restructuring parts of the existing judicial system.^[9]

Under Articles 117 and 118 of the 2004 constitution, the president appoints the nine members of the Supreme Court, subject to confirmation by the Wolesi Jirga. The president designates one of the confirmed members to serve as chief justice. A chief justice is required to be at least 40 years of age and possess professional experience together with expertise in both sharia and Afghan law,^[13] and not hold membership in any political party during their tenure.^[3]

Following the re-establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 2021, the chief justice has been appointed directly by decree of the supreme leader.^[14]

Under the Article 127 of the 2004 constitution, members of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, serves a single non-renewable term of ten years. Article 127 provides that a member of the Supreme Court is removed only following trial and conviction for crimes related to official duties or serious offenses.^[3]

Article 127 established the sole mechanism for removing the chief justice or any member of the Supreme Court before the end of their term. Dismissal requires a two-stage parliamentary process: first, more than one-third of all Wolesi Jirga members are required to formally demand a trial of the accused on grounds of a crime committed in the performance of duty; second, that demand is to be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the full Wolesi Jirga. Upon approval of the demand, the accused is immediately dismissed from office and the case referred to a special court for adjudication. Dismissal therefore precede any trial, the parliamentary vote is the operative act of removal, not a subsequent conviction.^[3][15][16]

The provision is invoked in practice during a 2011 constitutional dispute, when the Wolesi Jirga voted to impeach six of the nine Supreme Court justices following the court's involvement in a special elections tribunal. While a two-thirds majority needed to vote in favour, the parliament was not articulated a recognised crime related to official duties as required by Article 127, rendering the attempt constitutionally questionable.^[17]

Under Article 126 of the 2004 constitution, members of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, are entitled to a salary and associated benefits during their term of service, regulated by law and drawn from the judiciary's budget. The article further provides that a justice who had completed a full term is entitled to a lifetime pension, subject to the condition that the former officeholder did not subsequently accept state employment or hold political office; acceptance of either forfeited the pension entitlement. No equivalent provision applied to justices who resigned or were removed under Article 127 before completing their term.^[3]

The judiciary's salary scale is set below that of the executive branch, a disparity that legal entities and international observers, including Judicature international and European Country of Origin Information Network, identified as a structural factor undermining the recruitment and retention of qualified judges throughout the republican period.^[8][18]

No publicly codified salary structure or pension provision for the chief justice has been established under the Islamic Emirate since 2021. Judicial personnel are remunerated through the emirate's general budget allocations, the details of which are not widely documented.^[9]

The chief justice of Afghanistan serves as the head of the Supreme Court and exercises both judicial and administrative authority over the Afghan judiciary. Under the 2004 constitution, the Supreme Court is recognized as the highest judicial organ of the state, while the chief justice presided over its proceedings and supervised the functioning of the courts.^[3][19]

Article 121 of the constitution empowered the Supreme Court to review the conformity of laws, legislative decrees, international treaties, and international conventions with the constitution and to interpret legal provisions in accordance with the law.^[3][12]

Under the Law on Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts,^[20] the chief justice represents the judicial authority and directs the judicial and administrative activities of the Supreme Court. The officeholder presides over Supreme Court meetings, supervising court inspections, monitoring implementation of judicial decisions, overseeing expenditure of the judiciary's budget, and reports on judicial affairs to the president.^[19]

The Supreme Court also possesses supervisory powers over the judiciary, including authority relating to judicial administration, disciplinary matters, appointments, and internal court organization.^[18][21][12]

The office of Chief Justice and the Afghan judiciary have been the subject of criticism involving judicial independence, concentration of authoritarian power, and procedural safeguards. During the period of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, legal scholars and international observers frequently described the judiciary as vulnerable to political influence, corruption, and institutional weakness.^[22]

During the presidency of Hamid Karzai, the Supreme Court judges drew criticism for decisions widely perceived as favoring the executive branch, including the extension of presidential authority beyond constitutional limits and intervention in disputes involving parliament. Karzai arguably weakened judicial autonomy by appointing acting judicial officials outside ordinary constitutional procedures and by seeking influence over institutions responsible for constitutional oversight.^[23][24]

The Supreme Court, in particular chief justice, has also been a subject of scrutiny during the presidency of Ashraf Ghani. According to a 2019 report by The Diplomat, Ghani was accused of undermining judicial independence through politically motivated appointments, executive pressure on the courts, and the use of judicial institutions to reinforce presidential authority during constitutional and electoral disputes. The report also argues that the Supreme Court increasingly aligned itself with the executive branch in politically sensitive cases, contributing to declining public confidence in the neutrality of the judiciary.^[23]

Following the return of the Taliban in 2021, the judiciary established under the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been criticized for its lack of judicial independence and the close affiliation of judges with the Taliban. According to reports published by the Federal Judicial Center on the post-2021 judicial system, several judges appointed under the new administration are either Taliban members or closely associated with the movement. Reports also suggest that judges serving under the new system are predominantly muftis, Islamic legal scholars authorized to issue fatwas on questions of Islamic law.^[9]

Following the return of the Taliban in 2021, former judges of the republican judiciary stated that their salaries and benefits had been discontinued after their dismissal or retirement from office.^[25]