- Top short asks if spies are said to be judged in the military courts in the future.
- Judge Mandokhail underlines the unjustified sanctions of the innocent people.
- Hearing on civilian military trials postponed until February 3.
The justice of the Supreme Court Hasan Azhar Rizvi underlined the need for reforms not only before the anti-terrorism court but also in all the other courts for the improvement of the judiciary.
The remark occurred during the hearing of the intra-loud appeal against the trial of civilians before the military courts, by a constitutional bench of seven members of the Supreme Court on Friday.
The bench, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan – including judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali, Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan and judge Shahid Bilal – questioned the distinction Between the civilians involved in May 9, 9 Riotot and those responsible for the December 16 attacks.
Khawaja Ahmad Hussain – The lawyer for former chief judge Jawad S Khawaja – who opposed military trials, presented arguments during today’s hearing.
He said civilians are not a military trial. The lawyer also specified that he does not entirely dispute the army law but only a specific aspect. He stressed that judge Muneeb Akhtar had also referred to the same argument in his verdict.
To this, judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that there was a dispute over various possibilities in the FB Ali affair.
“Nowadays, there is also a point of view that if a political party engages in such actions, which should be done,” he noted, recalling his observation of the audience of Yesterday he mentioned Mehran’s basic attack and some other incidents.
Judge Hilali said the court was convinced at the previous hearing that military trials guarantee a fair trial. It was at this point that she asked questions about the difference between the people involved in the May 9 riots and the attack on the army public school, Peshawar, on December 16, 2014.
In response, Hussain said that individuals involved in the APS attack were linked to acts of terrorism. He explained that an amendment should be made to facilitate their trials, after which the accused was prosecuted.
The lawyer also said that the Pakistani army law applies to civilian employees of the armed forces.
At this point, judge Rizvi asked: “Does the army act apply to those who attack the air bases?”
Responding to the request, Hussain referred to the declaration of public relations between services (ISPR) concerning the incidents of May 9. He noted that the army media wing published a statement on May 15, 2023 on the events of May 9. He said he had no objection to the declaration but stressed that he expressed sorrow and sorrow within the institution on the incident. The declaration also mentioned the presence of undeniable evidence concerning the events of May 9.
“How to ensure a fair trial before a military court after such a declaration?” He asked.
The lawyer stressed that their case is not beyond the constitution. He said that the suspects of May 9 should be prosecuted, but not before the military courts, arguing that “assigned part can only ensure a fair trial”.
Here, judge Mazhar noted that the cancellation of article 2 (1) (d) (2) of the army law could have an impact on affairs such as the Indian espionage affair Kulbhushan Jadhav.
To this, judge Rizvi asked where anti-state spies would be judged in the future if the clause was deleted.
The lawyer Hussan replied that such cases should be treated by the anti -terrorist courts instead.
Judge Aminuddin expressed his concern about legal contradictions, saying: “It is strange to reduce a legal provision while authorizing exceptions for special cases.”
Judge Mazhar also asked if the armed forces of Pakistan could still use section 2 (1) (d) (2) in the future, to which Hussain replied that it would no longer apply.
He also underlined the restrictions in military trials, arguing that in a martial field (FGCM), the accused cannot choose a lawyer on their own preference. He explained that in the court martial procedure, the legal representation is only provided the approval of the army chief. If the army leader does not grant permission, the accused cannot hire a lawyer of his choice.
He also argued that an authority makes the decision, while another confirms it. He warned that by virtue of such a system, the confirmation authority could reverse a “non -guilty” verdict and declare the accused guilty instead.
At this point, Judge Hilali pointed out: “You are arguing on behalf of the suspects who are not even present before us.”
Meanwhile, judge Rizvi said: “In your opinion, a civilian should not be tried in a military court but in an anti -terrorist court. Currently, two and a half provinces of the country are affected by terrorism. No Mukti Bahini movement in the country;
Judge Mandokhail then declared that the prevention of terrorism is the responsibility of the administration. “It is their obligation to collect evidence. If the court has no evidence before, how can it issue a verdict? So people say that the judicial ranks of Pakistan 123rd in the world,” he Added.
At this stage, Judge Rizvi said that reforms are essential for improvement, whether it is a short anti -terrorist or any other.
Judge Mandokhail noticed here that it was a greater injustice to punish an innocent person than allowing 100 culprits to be released. “Our role is only to make a decision; true justice is in the hands of God.”
To this, judge Rizvi pointed out that even if a murder is committed in front of everyone, nobody presents himself to testify. “Witnesses are not assured of protection and, in cases of murder, lawyers take up to 25 audience dates.”
Judge Mandokhail also asked whether the 21st constitutional amendment – which was promulgated for four years and under which special courts were established – had been beneficial.
Later, the court postponed the hearing of the case concerning the trial of civilians before the military courts until February 3.