- Bench examines legality of military trials for civilians.
- Of the 5,000 accused during the events of May 9, 105 were brought before military courts.
- The JAG branch assists in drafting court judgments.
ISLAMABAD: Justice Jamal Mandokhail on Friday questioned whether army officers had enough experience and expertise to impose the death sentence on an accused.
His remarks came during the hearing of an intra-judicial appeal against civil trials in military courts, conducted by a seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan.
On October 23, the highest court, in its unanimous verdict delivered by a five-member tribunal, declared the trials of civilians in military courts null and void and ordered that 103 suspects be tried in civilian courts.
However, on December 13, 2023, a six-member bench of the apex court – with Justice Musarrat Hilali dissenting from the majority – stayed its October 23 order on petitions challenging the earlier verdict, which was later challenged.
But after an interruption, in December last year, the Constitutional Court conditionally authorized military courts to issue reserved verdicts on 85 civilians still in detention for their alleged involvement in the May 9, 2023 riots.
The May 9 riots refer to the violent protests sparked by the arrest of the PTI founder in a corruption case, during which state installations, including the headquarters, were also attacked.
As a result, the military court handed down sentences to the 85 defendants in the same month, but a few days earlier, 19 convicts were pardoned after begging for mercy.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail observed that the Army Act was applicable only to military personnel and the court must ensure respect for fundamental rights and justice for all.
Judge Musarrat Hilali asked for clarification on who writes judgments in military courts, noting that, according to her, cases are heard by a single person, while decisions on sanctions are made by commanders who do not have heard the case.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris explained that the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch helps in drafting judgments.
Justice Hilali questioned the judicial structure of military trials in other countries, to which Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that globally, court-martial chambers are generally staffed by military officers.
Haris said these officers had experience in conducting trials.
Justice Hilali highlighted an incident in which an army chief’s plane was forced to leave the country by turning off the airport lights, thereby endangering all passengers on board. She stressed that, despite the importance of the event that led to the establishment of martial law in the country, the case was not tried by a military court.
Haris responded that hijacking was not a crime listed in the Army Act and therefore there had been no trial in a military court.
Justice Mandokhail said despite his 34 years of experience, he does not consider himself an expert in his field and questioned whether army officers possess the knowledge and expertise to pass the death sentence against an accused.
Haris assured SC that he would elaborate on the military trial procedures in the next phase of his arguments.
Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the top court that around 5,000 people were involved in the events of May 9, with evidence placing 105 of them at the scene of the incidents referred to military courts.
The SC constitutional bench then adjourned the hearing of the intra-judicial appeal against the civil cases in the military courts to Monday.