Farid Hamidi’s Claims on Justice and Independence in Afghanistan: A Critique

Kokcha News Agency: In a recent interview with Anisa Shahid, Farid Hamidi, the former Attorney General of Afghanistan, made several claims about his tenure, including his appointment, the independence of the Attorney General’s Office, and his efforts to fight corruption. However, a closer examination of his statements reveals a stark contrast with the realities of his time in office.

Hamidi’s appointment, he claims, was based on merit and his commitment to justice. However, critics argue that his selection was the result of nepotism and political maneuvering within the inner circle of former President Ashraf Ghani. This “inner circle,” often referred to as the “Khusberan,” was known for prioritizing loyalty over competence, and Hamidi’s appointment is seen as a product of this system.

During his tenure, the independence of Afghanistan’s judicial system was severely compromised. Instead of upholding justice, the Attorney General’s Office became a tool for political intimidation and suppression. Critics point to the arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of election commission members as evidence of this politicization. Hamidi’s claims of standing up to political pressure and defending the independence of his office are contradicted by his actions, which often aligned with the directives of the presidential palace.

Hamidi also boasted about prosecuting powerful figures, including generals, senators, and governors. However, his critics argue that these prosecutions were selective and politically motivated, targeting those who lacked political backing while ignoring the corruption within Ghani’s inner circle. The prosecution of election commission members, who were independent and had no political affiliations, is cited as a glaring example of this selective justice.

Furthermore, Hamidi’s claims of fighting corruption are met with skepticism. Evidence suggests that corruption within the Attorney General’s Office was rampant, with reports of bribery and extortion. In one instance, members of the election commission were allegedly offered to have their cases dropped in exchange for large sums of money.

Hamidi’s tenure is also criticized for the lack of professional capacity within the Attorney General’s Office. Many prosecutors lacked the necessary expertise, leading to flawed legal proceedings and unjust outcomes. The prosecution of election commission members, based on a misunderstanding of electoral law, is a case in point.

In summary, Hamidi’s interview paints a picture of a committed public servant fighting for justice and independence. However, the reality of his tenure tells a different story—one of politicization, corruption, and selective justice.