Afghan Legislators Want Control Over Rights Body
Parliament tries to rein in the national human rights watchdog in what many see as an attempt to protect its members from war crimes allegations.
Afghan Legislators Want Control Over Rights Body
Parliament tries to rein in the national human rights watchdog in what many see as an attempt to protect its members from war crimes allegations.
The Afghan parliament’s attempt to wrest control of the national human rights watch body has seen a bitter debate between supporters of the move and those who believe some legislators want to avoid future accountability for past abuses.
In a vote on September 3, the lower house of parliament amended legislation to give itself the right to approve or veto appointments to a number of independent institutions including the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, AIHRC.
A minority of deputies continue to insist that the constitution grants them no powers to over appointments to independent commissions. The bill needs to be approved by the upper chamber and by President Hamed Karzai before it enters into force, and the AIHRC has urged the president not to do so.
AIHRC is headed by Sima Samar, one of the country’s most prominent women.
Before chairing the AIHRC, Samar was a deputy prime minister in the interim government that took over after the fall of the Taleban, and also served as minister for women’s affairs.
Now Samar and her commission are under attack. During the fierce debate in parliament, some deputies accused the AIHRC of being in league with foreign intelligence agencies, and of being biased in favour of the Hazara ethnic group to which Samar belongs.
They originally demanded that the commission be dissolved. Failing that, they insisted that parliament should control the appointment of its head.
Opponents of the move say the real bone of contention is the AIHRC’s repeated calls for an investigation into the human rights violations committed during decades of brutal war.
Many parliamentarians come from the mujaheddin factions which fought and ultimately triumphed over the Soviet Union, only to begin a vicious battle for primacy amongst themselves in the early Nineties.
In the process, tens of thousands of Afghans lost their lives, and many more were displaced. Kabul was largely destroyed as the various factions pounded each other and civilian residential areas. This phase of internecine warfare ended when the Taleban took over much of the country, capturing Kabul in 1996.
The civil war years have left a legacy of anger and bitterness that persists to the present day.
In spring 2005, the AIHRC issued a report entitled “A Call for Justice”, which documented the overwhelming desire of many Afghans to see those who perpetrated the heinous crimes of the war years brought to account.
Human Rights Watch, in a 2005 report called “Blood-Stained Hands”, named several prominent figures in government whom it accused of war crimes - an allegation that parliamentarians have dismissed as baseless and inaccurate.
In January 2007, parliament passed a resolution that exempts all who participated in the 25 years of “jihad” from prosecution for war crimes. The move provoked indignation among human rights groups including the AIHRC.
After the September 3 motion was passed, AIHRC member Mohammad Farid Hamidi said it was illegal.
“This decision has no basis in the law,” he said. “I do not think the president will accept it.”
He reacted angrily to accusations that the AIHRC had ties to foreign intelligence services.
“We do our job for God and country, with honesty, and according to the law,” he said. “We deny any allegations that we are serving foreigners. Accusing someone without proof is itself a crime.”
Part of the problem is that the AIHRC’s independence is not enshrined by clear legislation. The body was set up by the government to oversee the transitional justice process, but Article 58 of the constitution does not spell out the extent of government oversight, stating merely that “the structure and functions of the commission shall be regulated by law”.
Presidential spokesperson Humayun Hamidzade does not accept that this wording gives parliament the right to appoint or reject commission members.
“The commission is not a government institution,” he said. “It is semi-governmental. Parliament’s decision is in violation of the constitution.”
Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai also condemned the decision.
“Those who are doing this are people who have been accused of crimes against humanity,” she told IWPR. “They want to dominate this commission, burn its files and interrupt the process of transitional justice.”
Barakzai added that parliament’s actions do not reflect well on its members.
“Our people and the people of the world know this parliament well, and they do not trust it,” she said. “Parliament has lost its prestige and authority, and it is leading the country towards crisis.”
But another deputy, Alam Gul Kuchai, one of the architects of the resolution, disagrees. In his opinion, the AIHRC and other independent institutions should be monitored and controlled by lawmakers.
“The constitution does not clearly state [that parliament has control],”he said. “That is a defect in the constitution.”
Parliament, he said, has the right to make whatever laws it feels are in the interests of the nation.
He said the commission’s members and its record were the problem, not the existence of a human rights institution as such.
“Dozens of women, children, and old people are attacked every day,” he said. “But the commission has never raised its voice for them. All they talk about is the mujaheddin.
“We do not oppose the human rights commission. We only oppose the commission’s members. They act contrary to Islamic law and they do whatever the foreigners tell them to do. We have evidence of this, which we will reveal to the nation very soon.”
Fazel Rahman Oria, a political analyst and editor of the Erada newspaper, also believes parliament has the right to take control of official institutions.
“The directors of Da Afghanistan Bank, the Red Crescent and so on all have to be confirmed by parliament. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission is a government institution, so why should it be any different?”
In any case, he alleged, the AIHRC, was politically biased and the “independent” in its title was “just to fool people”.
“Since its inception, it has been neither independent nor impartial,” said Oria. “Sima Samar was a member of Hezb-e-Wahdat and still has relations with that party.”
Hezb-e-Wahdat is a political faction dominated by the Hazara ethnic group. Some of its leaders have been implicated in human rights abuses.
“All of Samar’s work displays linguistic, ethnic, and regional bias,” continued Oria. “Almost all of the posts are given to people from the one ethnic group.”
Oria also criticised the commission for being largely ineffectual.
“In the past five years, not a single war criminal has been put on trial, and they haven’t even published a list of war criminals,” he said. “All they have done is come up with some high-sounding slogans.”
An opposing view was voiced by another analyst, Mohammad Qasim Akhgar, who sees the parliamentary decision as revenge for the commission’s vigorous calls for the prosecution of suspected war criminals.
“The human rights commission has stuck like a bone in the throats of the parliamentarians with its call for justice,” he said. “Those who murdered more than 60,000 Kabul citizens and looted the capital - have they ever admitted that this was against Islam? What evidence do they have for calling the commission un-Islamic?”
Hafizullah Gardesh is IWPR’s regional editor, based in Kabul.
In a vote on September 3, the lower house of parliament amended legislation to give itself the right to approve or veto appointments to a number of independent institutions including the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, AIHRC.
A minority of deputies continue to insist that the constitution grants them no powers to over appointments to independent commissions. The bill needs to be approved by the upper chamber and by President Hamed Karzai before it enters into force, and the AIHRC has urged the president not to do so.
AIHRC is headed by Sima Samar, one of the country’s most prominent women.
Before chairing the AIHRC, Samar was a deputy prime minister in the interim government that took over after the fall of the Taleban, and also served as minister for women’s affairs.
Now Samar and her commission are under attack. During the fierce debate in parliament, some deputies accused the AIHRC of being in league with foreign intelligence agencies, and of being biased in favour of the Hazara ethnic group to which Samar belongs.
They originally demanded that the commission be dissolved. Failing that, they insisted that parliament should control the appointment of its head.
Opponents of the move say the real bone of contention is the AIHRC’s repeated calls for an investigation into the human rights violations committed during decades of brutal war.
Many parliamentarians come from the mujaheddin factions which fought and ultimately triumphed over the Soviet Union, only to begin a vicious battle for primacy amongst themselves in the early Nineties.
In the process, tens of thousands of Afghans lost their lives, and many more were displaced. Kabul was largely destroyed as the various factions pounded each other and civilian residential areas. This phase of internecine warfare ended when the Taleban took over much of the country, capturing Kabul in 1996.
The civil war years have left a legacy of anger and bitterness that persists to the present day.
In spring 2005, the AIHRC issued a report entitled “A Call for Justice”, which documented the overwhelming desire of many Afghans to see those who perpetrated the heinous crimes of the war years brought to account.
Human Rights Watch, in a 2005 report called “Blood-Stained Hands”, named several prominent figures in government whom it accused of war crimes - an allegation that parliamentarians have dismissed as baseless and inaccurate.
In January 2007, parliament passed a resolution that exempts all who participated in the 25 years of “jihad” from prosecution for war crimes. The move provoked indignation among human rights groups including the AIHRC.
After the September 3 motion was passed, AIHRC member Mohammad Farid Hamidi said it was illegal.
“This decision has no basis in the law,” he said. “I do not think the president will accept it.”
He reacted angrily to accusations that the AIHRC had ties to foreign intelligence services.
“We do our job for God and country, with honesty, and according to the law,” he said. “We deny any allegations that we are serving foreigners. Accusing someone without proof is itself a crime.”
Part of the problem is that the AIHRC’s independence is not enshrined by clear legislation. The body was set up by the government to oversee the transitional justice process, but Article 58 of the constitution does not spell out the extent of government oversight, stating merely that “the structure and functions of the commission shall be regulated by law”.
Presidential spokesperson Humayun Hamidzade does not accept that this wording gives parliament the right to appoint or reject commission members.
“The commission is not a government institution,” he said. “It is semi-governmental. Parliament’s decision is in violation of the constitution.”
Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai also condemned the decision.
“Those who are doing this are people who have been accused of crimes against humanity,” she told IWPR. “They want to dominate this commission, burn its files and interrupt the process of transitional justice.”
Barakzai added that parliament’s actions do not reflect well on its members.
“Our people and the people of the world know this parliament well, and they do not trust it,” she said. “Parliament has lost its prestige and authority, and it is leading the country towards crisis.”
But another deputy, Alam Gul Kuchai, one of the architects of the resolution, disagrees. In his opinion, the AIHRC and other independent institutions should be monitored and controlled by lawmakers.
“The constitution does not clearly state [that parliament has control],”he said. “That is a defect in the constitution.”
Parliament, he said, has the right to make whatever laws it feels are in the interests of the nation.
He said the commission’s members and its record were the problem, not the existence of a human rights institution as such.
“Dozens of women, children, and old people are attacked every day,” he said. “But the commission has never raised its voice for them. All they talk about is the mujaheddin.
“We do not oppose the human rights commission. We only oppose the commission’s members. They act contrary to Islamic law and they do whatever the foreigners tell them to do. We have evidence of this, which we will reveal to the nation very soon.”
Fazel Rahman Oria, a political analyst and editor of the Erada newspaper, also believes parliament has the right to take control of official institutions.
“The directors of Da Afghanistan Bank, the Red Crescent and so on all have to be confirmed by parliament. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission is a government institution, so why should it be any different?”
In any case, he alleged, the AIHRC, was politically biased and the “independent” in its title was “just to fool people”.
“Since its inception, it has been neither independent nor impartial,” said Oria. “Sima Samar was a member of Hezb-e-Wahdat and still has relations with that party.”
Hezb-e-Wahdat is a political faction dominated by the Hazara ethnic group. Some of its leaders have been implicated in human rights abuses.
“All of Samar’s work displays linguistic, ethnic, and regional bias,” continued Oria. “Almost all of the posts are given to people from the one ethnic group.”
Oria also criticised the commission for being largely ineffectual.
“In the past five years, not a single war criminal has been put on trial, and they haven’t even published a list of war criminals,” he said. “All they have done is come up with some high-sounding slogans.”
An opposing view was voiced by another analyst, Mohammad Qasim Akhgar, who sees the parliamentary decision as revenge for the commission’s vigorous calls for the prosecution of suspected war criminals.
“The human rights commission has stuck like a bone in the throats of the parliamentarians with its call for justice,” he said. “Those who murdered more than 60,000 Kabul citizens and looted the capital - have they ever admitted that this was against Islam? What evidence do they have for calling the commission un-Islamic?”
Hafizullah Gardesh is IWPR’s regional editor, based in Kabul.
