Afghanistan’s ‘Taliban Code’: How a new law divides citizens, grants clerical immunity and legalises slavery

Taliban law entrenches inequality and coercion

Taliban supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada approved and circulated a new 119-article “Criminal Procedure Code for Courts” on January 4, intended to regulate judicial proceedings in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Far from standardising justice, the document has triggered sharp condemnation from Afghan and international human rights organisations, former officials and resistance groups.

Critics say the code formalises discrimination, embeds social hierarchy into law, and legalises practices that violate fundamental human rights. At the centre of the controversy is Article 9, which human rights bodies have dubbed the Taliban Code.

Article 9: A four-tier legal hierarchy

Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan citizens into four unequal legal classes, determining punishment not by the gravity of the offence but by the social status of the accused.

According to Rawadari, an Afghan human rights organisation founded by activists forced into exile after the Taliban’s return in 2021, the hierarchy places religious scholars (mullahs) at the top, followed by elites such as tribal elders and military commanders, then the middle class, and finally the lower class.

Mullahs who commit crimes are subjected only to “advice” or admonition

Elites may be summoned and advised but generally avoid imprisonment

Middle-class citizens can face prison sentences

Lower-class individuals are subjected to imprisonment combined with corporal punishment, including public flogging

Rawadari warned that punishments for identical offences will now vary based solely on class, undermining the principle of equality before the law.

Clerics placed above the law

Human rights groups say the code effectively grants immunity from criminal prosecution to religious scholars. If a mullah commits an offence, the law mandates counselling rather than trial or punishment, placing clerics above the judicial system.

Former Afghan Ambassador to Austria Manizha Bakhtari said the code creates “unequal legal classes where upper classes escape punishment through advice and warnings, while lower classes face the full force of discretionary punishment”.

Observers note that such provisions consolidate religious authority and shield clerics from accountability.

Legal recognition of slavery

One of the most disturbing aspects of the code is its explicit recognition of slavery as a legal status, referred to as “ghulami” or “ghulam”. The document repeatedly uses the term “slave” to distinguish legal categories, implicitly legitimising slavery.

Article 15 states that discretionary punishment (ta’zir) applies “whether the criminal is free or a slave”.

Paragraph 5 of Article 4 specifies that while fixed punishments (hudud) are carried out by an “Imam”, ta’zir punishments may be executed by a “husband” or “master”.

Human rights organisations say this provision enables institutionalised domestic violence and coercion, particularly against women and children, by allowing private individuals to enforce punishment.

Harsh punishments and lack of due process

Rawadari said the code contradicts international human rights standards, including:

Equality before the law

Presumption of innocence

Prohibition of torture

Right to a fair trial

The document relies heavily on confessions and testimony for proof, provides no safeguards for defence lawyers, and does not recognise the right to remain silent. It also grants broad discretionary powers under ta’zir, increasing the risk of arbitrary punishment.

The Afghan International, a London-based Afghan outlet, reported that the code bans only physical violence that results in “bone fractures” or “tearing of the skin”, meaning many forms of physical punishment remain legally permissible.

Backlash from rights groups and former officials

The code has drawn condemnation from across the spectrum. The Supreme Council of National Resistance for the Salvation of Afghanistan described it as “far worse than the Middle Ages”, warning that it violates principles of human dignity and international prohibitions on slavery.

Former Attorney General Mohammad Farid Hamidi called it “a document proclaiming the conviction of all citizens”, saying that branding people as inferior constitutes a direct assault on human worth.

The Afghanistan Women’s Justice Movement condemned the code as “the legalisation of brutality” that entrenches gender apartheid, while former National Directorate of Security chief Rahmatullah Nabil said it demonstrated that “politicised religion and rigid interpretations offer no future for Afghanistan”.

International concern grows

The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, described the code’s implications as “deeply troubling” and said he was reviewing it from both human rights and Sharia perspectives. Rawadari urged the United Nations, International Criminal Court and global human rights bodies to intervene and halt its implementation.

Critics warn that by embedding hierarchy, immunity and coercion into law, the Taliban is formalising repression through judicial processes. Rather than an aberration, they argue, the new code marks a deliberate shift towards codified inequality, where fear, punishment and exclusion are central tools of governance.

(With Inputs from agencies)