- The defense lawyer presents military judicial archives in sealed envelopes.
- Justice Mazhar says probe was held first, followed by official accusations.
- The lawyer claims that security problems restrict access to families in suspects.
Islamabad: Judge of the Supreme Court Jamal Khan Mandokhail said on Wednesday that the lawyers leading military trials operating under the authorities concerned.
The remarks occurred during the hearing of an intra-haired plea concerning the trial of civilians in the military courts.
A constitutional bench of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan and including judge Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi, judge Musarrat Hilali and Judge Naem Akhtar Afghan, held the procedure.
At the start of the hearing, Judge Hilali asked if an investigation had taken place before the accusations. Judge Mazhar replied that investigations were carried out first, followed by official charges.
The lawyer for the Ministry of Defense, Khawaja Haris, added that the law clearly distinguishes a trial and a fair trial.
Judge Azhar asked if an accused in a military trial receives a lawyer appointed by the State if he could not afford one, to which Haris confirmed that the legal representation funded by the State was available.
Judge Mandokhail pointed out that the courts generally considered the accused as the “favorite child” of justice, wondering if the same thing applies to military trials. To this, Haris replied that by virtue of the rules of the army law, the accused receives complete protection.
Judge Mandokhail then declared that an accused was considered to be the “favorite child” of the court, wondering if the same thing applies to the military courts. The lawyer for the Ministry of Defense assured that by virtue of the rules of the army law, complete protection is provided to the accused.
The Afghan judge, on the other hand, said that as a chief judge of Balutchistan, he had heard calls against the Verdicts of the Military Court and that the decisions had not been made on empty documents simply declaring an accused guilty or innocent.
He added that when the cases were disputed before the courses, the general seat provided complete legal files, including procedural evidence and details.
Judge Rizvi then wondered if the families of the civil accused or the media had access to military legal proceedings. To this, Haris informed the court that if the law mentions access to families and the media, security problems often restrict it.
The judge also asked if the judges of the military courts had prior experience or are appointed without any. He also asked if a defense agent presiding over a case has previous legal experience and if a defender of the judge presented to the court could lead a martial court. The lawyer confirmed that a defender of the judge is still sitting alongside military judges.
Meanwhile, judge Hilali raised concerns about the impact of these civilians on civilians, declaring that society is already confronted with anarchy.
Judge Mandokhail noted that session judges are appointed after decades of legal experience, while certain recent cases show that even the decisions of the benches of eight judges are challenged by two judges.
He then asked if article 175 of the Constitution provides for military courts. Haris replied that the revision of previous decisions of the military courts would be necessary if such a provision was established. He added that military courts exist in several countries and are recognized by constitutional law.
Judge Mandokhail also asked why the cases linked to narcotics, entirely controlled by the military, demanded the appointment of a session judge of the chief judge of Pakistan for the trials. To this, the lawyer argued that the military courts were legally excluded from article 175 in all previous judicial decisions.
During the hearing, the Afghan judge ordered the Ministry of Defense to present examples of military court decisions beyond May 9 affairs. Haris presented the files in sealed envelopes and distributed seven copies of the decisions of the military courts to the bench of seven judges.
Haris urged the court to examine the process of trial, saying that before the procedure, the accused were asked if they had objections to the presidents, and none had raised concerns.
Judge Mandokhail, however, pointed out that the files should be examined at the appeal stadium, which makes the court inappropriate to assess them at this stage. Judge Amicin assured that the Supreme Court would not allow the trial to be affected.
Meanwhile, judge Rizvi noted that after examining the files, the affairs of May 9 did not seem to be subject to state security problems. He suggested that making the public to public files could reveal the actions of the accused, allowing the public to judge their conduct.
To this, the lawyer for the Ministry of Defense replied that such decisions rest with the authorities.
Later, six judges of the constitutional bench, with the exception of the Hilali judge, rendered the files of the trial in Haris.