Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06KABUL2364
2006-05-24 14:26:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kabul
Cable title:  

PARLIAMENT APPROVES ONLY TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Tags:  PGOV PREL PINR KDEM AF 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO6158
PP RUEHDBU
DE RUEHBUL #2364/01 1441426
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 241426Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY KABUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0411
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHSJ/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE 0015
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHDC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 5981
RUMICEA/USCENTCOM INTEL CEN MACDILL AFB FL
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RHMFISS/COMSOCCENT MACDILL AFB FL
RUEATRS/US TREASURY WASHDC
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KABUL 002364 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/FO, S/CT, SA/A, G KATE FRIEDRICH, G/IWI DIANNE
GRAHAM
NSC FOR AHARRIMAN, KAMEND
CENTCOM FOR POLAD, CG CFC-A, CG CJTF-76
TREASURY FOR LMCDONALD, WBALDRIDGE, APARAMESWARAN, ABAUKOL
STATE PLEASE PASS USAID FOR AID/ANE, AID/DCHA/DG
SAN JOSE FOR JANAE COOLEY
REL NATO/ISAF, AUS, NZ

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/04/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KDEM AF
SUBJECT: PARLIAMENT APPROVES ONLY TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

REF: KABUL 1694

Classified By: POLCOUNS ANGUS SIMMONS FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KABUL 002364

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/FO, S/CT, SA/A, G KATE FRIEDRICH, G/IWI DIANNE
GRAHAM
NSC FOR AHARRIMAN, KAMEND
CENTCOM FOR POLAD, CG CFC-A, CG CJTF-76
TREASURY FOR LMCDONALD, WBALDRIDGE, APARAMESWARAN, ABAUKOL
STATE PLEASE PASS USAID FOR AID/ANE, AID/DCHA/DG
SAN JOSE FOR JANAE COOLEY
REL NATO/ISAF, AUS, NZ

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/04/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KDEM AF
SUBJECT: PARLIAMENT APPROVES ONLY TWO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

REF: KABUL 1694

Classified By: POLCOUNS ANGUS SIMMONS FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)


1. (SBU) SUMMARY. On Wednesday, May 24, the Afghan National
Assembly approved only two of four Supreme Court Justices put
to a vote. The two approved Justices - Mawlawi Mohammad
Qasem and Mohammad Aleem Nasemi - are both Pashtun Sharia law
faculty graduates. Of the five remaining Justices, three
were rejected by voice vote due to concerns about dual
citizenship. The fate of the other two (including Chief
Justice Shinwari) will be debated on Saturday, May 27. END
SUMMARY.

Vote Count
--------------


2. (SBU) Two hundred of the 249 Wolesi Jirga (WJ) MPs voted
on the Supreme Court nominees. Notable among the absent
members were Sayyaf, Rabbani and Mohaqeq, none of whom showed
up to vote. The status of all the Supreme Court nominees is
as follows:

Sheikh al-Hadees Fazel Hadi Shinwari - no vote (has not yet
appeared before Parliament)
Mohammad Omar Mohmand - rejected by vote: 71 yes, 84 no, 4
invalid
Mawlawi Mohammad Qasem - approved by vote: 124 yes, 84 no, 3
invalid
Mohammad Qasem Hashemzai - rejected by voice vote (dual
citizenship)
Mohammad Hussein Roostayi - no vote (educational credentials
not confirmed/has not appeared before Parliament)
Shah Ali Azqar Shahrestani - rejected by vote: 92 yes, 115
no, 4 invalid
Bahaudin Baha - rejected by voice vote (green card holder)
Abdul Rasheed Rashed - rejected by voice vote (dual
citizenship)
Mohammad Aleem Nasemi - approved by vote: 109 yes, 100 no, 2
invalid

Ethnic Politics at Play?
--------------


3. (C) The vote and debate on the Justices was greeted with
general dismay by many members of Parliament, who stated that
ethnic politics was at play. While some Pashtun MPs stated

that Mohmand was rejected because he was Pashtun (many
non-Pashtun MPs complained about the large number of Pashtuns
on the panel of nominees),his halting speech before
Parliament was more likely the deciding factor. The Shia
Hazara Shahrestani, who was well-received by Parliament when
he appeared before the WJ, was, however, very possibly the
victim of conservative Sunni MPs not interested in having a
Shia Justice. The approved judges - Qasem and Nasemi - are
both Pashtun judges with university degrees in Sharia law
(reftel).

Procedural Debate Likely to Continue
--------------


4. (SBU) The vote on the Supreme Court was preceded by two
days of extended and often angry debate on the rules
surrounding discussion of the Supreme Court (in particular,
does Chief Justice Shinwari need to appear before Parliament)
and the definition of a parliamentary majority (i.e., do
abstaining votes count as present or absent votes). There
was little to no discussion of the qualifications or opinions
of the Justices voted upon. In order to come to a vote on
the non-controversial Justices, the WJ temporarily decided to
count abstaining votes as absent votes (as it had done during

KABUL 00002364 002 OF 002


the Cabinet confirmation hearings) and to delay discussion of
the Justices who have not been questioned by Parliament until
Saturday, May 27. At that time, further procedural
disagreement is likely to stall any decision-making process.

Comment
--------------


5. (C) The vote today was a preview of the more controversial
debate over the confirmation of Chief Justice Shinwari.
Shinwari's confirmation, as the sitting Chief Justice and
head of the religious Ulema Council, is a touchstone for
Pashtun MPs, particularly religious conservatives. They have
fiercely defended Shinwari's right not to appear before
Parliament, turning to procedural maneuvers when they found
little support for arguments that Shinwari, as a religious
judge, should not have to appear before Parliament. Shinwari
has given no indication that he intends to be questioned by
Parliament, and has hinted to international interlocutors
that he thinks he will be confirmed, even while claiming he
no longer wants to be Chief Justice. The strong defense
offered by his supporters, though, indicates that Shinwari is
still very much in play, and that his protestations may be
more of a tactic to energize his backers while appearing to
stay above the fray.


6. (C) While ethnic rivalries in Parliament have surfaced in
this debate, ethnicity does not seem to be the defining
factor in choosing Justices. The more likely cause of the
current stalemate in Parliament is the movement of
disagreements between Sayyaf and Qanooni into floor debate.
Sayyaf has been openly critical of Qanooni's management
several times over the past two days, and walked out of
debate on May 23. Without Sayyaf there to influence
conservative Pashtun MPs, Qanooni has not been able to
control overall debate on the floor. The stakes in this
debate are high - the Supreme Court's influence is extensive
in both the civic and religious realms - and neither Sayyaf
(Shinwari's main supporter) or Qanooni (suspected by some of
seeking to advance the interests of his father-in-law, who is
a lower-ranking judge in the Supreme Court) seems ready to
back down. END COMMENT.

NEUMANN