Jirgas, Informal Justice and the Erosion of State Authority in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: U.S. Supports Khyber Pakhtunkhwa English Students - U.S. Embassy Islamabad

Jirgas Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remain the most active parallel justice system in Pakistan despite the 2018 constitutional merger of the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. The jirga — the traditional assembly of tribal elders — continues to decide criminal, civil, and family disputes across most rural KP districts. As a result, the formal Pakistani state authority is hollowed out in vast areas. This article examines how jirgas operate, why they persist, and what their continuing role means for asylum protection for those who fall foul of jirga rulings.[1]

The evidence base draws on the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), Amnesty International, the International Crisis Group, the UN OHCHR, and academic studies of legal pluralism in Pashtun areas.

Historical Background

The jirga (literally "circle") is the oldest decision-making body in Pashtun society. Tribal elders gather to discuss disputes, declare war or peace, mediate between families, and impose punishments for breaches of community norms. Under British colonial rule and through the early post-1947 Pakistani state, the jirga had quasi-official status in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901.[2]

The May 2018 25th Constitutional Amendment merged FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, formally extending the Pakistan Penal Code and the Constitution. This was meant to bring tribal areas under regular Pakistani law and end the parallel jirga system. In practice, the merger has not displaced jirgas.

Types of Jirga in KP Today

The Constitutional Position

In National Commission on the Status of Women v Government of Pakistan (2019), the Pakistan Supreme Court ruled that jirga and panchayat decisions are unconstitutional where they conflict with statutory law or fundamental rights. The judgment stated that "no parallel system of justice can be tolerated." However, the judgment has had limited impact on the ground. Police rarely arrest jirga participants. Prosecutors decline to bring cases. As a result, jirgas continue to operate.[3]

Jirga Practices That Violate Human Rights

Several documented jirga practices directly contradict Pakistani statutory law and international human rights standards. Each creates a category of potential asylum risk for those affected.[4]

• Swara / Vani / Sang chatti — forced marriage of young girls or women to settle disputes between families or tribes. Outlawed by 2011 Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Act; continues in many districts.
• Karo-kari sentences — jirga orders for honour killings.
• Property dispossession — jirga awards of land that override formal title.
• Banishment from village — collective ostracism enforced by community.
• Public humiliation — including parading offenders through the village.
• Compensation orders against women — including handing over female relatives.
• Death sentences for "moral" offences — extra-judicial executions.

Erosion of State Authority

The continuing role of jirgas reflects and reinforces the erosion of state authority in KP rural areas. The mechanism is recognisable across many post-conflict and structurally weak state settings. See our companion articles on cartel territorial control in Central America and Northern Triangle judicial capture for parallel analyses.[5]

Impact on Women

Women bear the most severe consequences of jirga jurisdiction. Several factors converge to produce particular vulnerability.[6]

• No representation — women cannot attend or speak at traditional jirgas.
• Punitive use of marriage — swara and vani exchanges treat women as property.
• Honour-related sanctions — see our honour violence Pashtun communities article.
• No appeal mechanism — jirga rulings are not subject to formal review.
• Police complicity — police often refuse to register cases against jirga decisions.

The continuing role of jirgas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not a relic of pre-modern Pashtun culture. It is a functional response to the state's failure to deliver accessible, trusted justice in rural areas. So long as that failure persists, jirgas will continue to fill the vacuum — and women in particular will continue to bear the consequences.
HRCP, Annual Report on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2024-2025

Implications for Asylum Claims

For those facing jirga rulings, the asylum framework usually engages on multiple grounds.[7]

1. Particular social group — women in KP; victims of swara; couples targeted by jirga; those who have defied jirga authority.
2. Imputed political opinion — defiance of customary norms can be framed as opposition.
3. Article 3 ECHR / CAT — risk of death or serious harm.
4. Non-state persecution with state protection failure — see our non-state persecution guide.

Conclusion

Jirgas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa represent the most active parallel justice system in Pakistan. They continue to operate despite constitutional rulings against them. They impose collective sanctions, ordered marriages, and death sentences that have no statutory basis. The Pakistani state lacks the capacity or will to prevent them.

For asylum decision-makers, jirga-related claims engage the empirical reality of state protection failure in rural KP. The legal framework supports refugee protection where the individual case fits the documented patterns. Country expert reports addressing the jirga system specifically are central to building strong cases.