What's new

Is it right for civilians to be tried under military courts in Pakistan?

Is it right for civilians to be tried under military courts in Pakistan?

  • Yes, under certain circumstances

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • No, civil courts should handle cases of civilians

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • Total voters
    14
wasim-fan said:
But I am not repeating any propoganda. Facts are in front of you and they maybe uncomfortable. I am also not blaming Imran either for not defending those folks who got caught. He has protect his political future.

As for evidence, I can share umpteen evidences of his speeches calling for Jihad. His nephew has been caught on camera. Do you want me to share the video ? Interestingly the nephew and Imran are out of jail while all the poor men are inside. Ultimately it's the poor that will bear the brunt.
Click to expand...

that's what happens to all the foot soldiers. when elephants fight grass gets trampled. I don't blame Imran or his followers to dream about a revolution. But i hate is the way it has been executed. There is nothing to be gained by burning down army properties when they were the one who facilitated their growth. If you want to bring down army you should have taken small incremental steps when you were in power. Instead of that IK was always on the same page with Military and passed news laws supporting them. They fought with every other political party and said they are all looters and thugs. Now when all that has come home to roost they are finding it difficult to deal with it.

Democrasy is about working, negotiating and compromising with others. IK may have been elected, but so were all those who were called thugs and looters. In democracy elected representatives hold value whether one likes it or not. You got to work with them until people stop electing them. You can't wish them away and ignore them when you are in power. Once you lose power same thing will happen to you as IK and PTI are finding out.
 
(New York) – The Pakistan government should immediately transfer civilians set to be tried in military courts to the civilian justice system, Human Rights Watch said today. Trying civilians before military courts violates Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law to ensure the due process and fair trial rights of criminal suspects.

The Pakistan police have handed 33 civilian suspects over to the army for trial in military courts. The suspects are charged with attacking sensitive defense installations, and damaging or stealing important government equipment, computers, and other sources of data collection. The Pakistan Army Act (PAA), 1952, and Official Secrets Act, 1923 allow trying civilians in military courts only in narrowly defined circumstances, including for inciting mutiny, spying, and taking photographs of “prohibited” places.

“The Pakistani government has a responsibility to prosecute those committing violence, but only in independent and impartial civilian courts,” said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Pakistan’s military courts, which use secret procedures that deny due process rights, should not be used to prosecute civilians, even for crimes against the military.”

Violence swept across Pakistan on May 9, 2023 after the police arrested former Prime Minister Imran Khan on corruption charges. Many of Khan’s supporters attacked police officers and set fire to ambulances, police vehicles, and schools. Among the places attacked were the military headquarters and other offices in Rawalpindi and the houses of senior military officials.

Following the clashes, the police arrested thousands of members of Khan’s political party, Tehrik-i-Insaaf, on charges of criminal intimidation, rioting, and assault on government officials.

Many have been charged under vague and overbroad laws prohibiting rioting and creating threats to public order. All those arrested merely for their political affiliation should be released immediately and any charges dropped.

The government said that those arrested and charged with acts of violence will face trials in civilian courts, except for those who broke into and entered restricted access military installations, who will be tried in military courts. According to the government, these defendants will have the right of appeal to the civilian high courts and Supreme Court.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees everyone the right to a trial by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. The Human Rights Committee, the international expert body authorized to monitor compliance with the ICCPR, has stated that the “trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned,” and that “trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where … regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials.”

International human rights standards provide no basis for Pakistani authorities to try these cases in military courts, especially as the civilian courts are functioning, Human Rights Watch said. Pakistan’s military court judges are serving officials and are not independent from the government. In the past, no independent monitoring of military trials in Pakistan has been allowed. Defendants have often been denied copies of judgments with the evidence and reasoning in the verdicts in their cases.

“Denying people a fair trial is not the answer to Pakistan’s complex security and political challenges,” Gossman said. “Strengthening the civilian courts and upholding the rule of law is the message the Pakistani government should send as an effective and powerful response to violence.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/31/pakistan-dont-try-civilians-military-courts
 
From Reuters:

Nasir, who contested the 2018 elections as an independent candidate, has been an outspoken critic of multiple human rights violations in the country and represented victims as a lawyer in a number of prominent cases.

Lately, he has criticised the mass arrests of leaders from former prime minister Imran Khan's party and the move to try them in military courts following violent protests earlier this month.
 
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Saturday said the chances were that PTI Chairman Imran Khan could be tried in a military court in connection with his alleged involvement in the May 9 attacks on civil and military installations in different cities -- days after Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah had hinted at that possibility too.

The defence minister told The Express Tribune that the former premier could stand trial in a military court if evidence of his involvement in the May 9 violence surfaced in the coming days.

He also confirmed that no case had been registered against Imran so far in connection with the May 9 attacks.

“Definitely…there are chances that Imran Khan can be tried in a military court,” the minister said while responding to a question if the deposed premier could be prosecuted under the Army Act.

Earlier, Asif was reported as saying that no decision had been made in connection with trying Imran under the Army Act but he had not ruled out that possibility, allegedly on the grounds that the PTI chief was the mastermind behind the May 9 violence and knew everything about what was happening on that day.

Now, Asif has said Imran’s trial in a military court was more likely to take place provided that evidence of his involvement in the mayhem came to light.

The defence minister’s remarks have come on the heels of the statement by Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah, who said Imran would face trial in a military court for his “role” in the May 9 attacks.

Sanaullah recently accused Imran of “personally planning attacks” on military installations, saying that there was ample evidence to substantiate these allegations.

The interior minister said the proofs were available in the shape of Imran’s tweets and messages.

He claimed that Imran personally orchestrated the attacks and questioned why his trial should not be conducted in a military court.

The PTI found itself in hot waters, when in an unprecedented show of hooliganism, protesters allegedly belonging to the party, vandalised public and private properties on May 9.

They even attacked the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi as well Lahore’s Jinnah House where the city’s corps commander was residing, among other buildings, installations and symbols of State.

The attack occurred hours after Rangers personnel arrested the PTI chief in the Al-Qadir Trust corruption case on the orders of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from the Islamabad High Court premises.

Violent protests broke out across the country after the arrest and the rioters vandalised civilian infrastructure and military installations.

Both the defence and interior ministers' statements hinting at the former premier’s trial in a military court stem from the federal cabinet’s decision that the protesters, who ransacked and vandalised military installations on May 9, would be tried under the Army Act and Official Secrets Act.

The federal cabinet meeting, chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, had given approval for trying civilians in the military courts just days after the National Security Committee (NSC) and Corps Commanders’ Conference vowed to bring those behind the violent protests to justice.

The government ministers have repeatedly said that no new military courts would be established and the suspects would be tried in the “special standing courts” that were already functioning under the Army Act.

Prior to the cabinet and NSC meetings, army chief Gen Asim Munir also said that perpetrators, planners and executors of the May 9 attacks would be tried under the Army Act and Official Secret Act.

The top civil and military leadership has frequently been saying that no leniency would be shown to those, who attacked the military installations, regardless of their affiliation with the PTI.

Initially, it was thought that some bigwigs would not abandon the PTI but key leaders like Pervez Khattak, Fawad Chaudhry, Shireen Mazari, Usman Buzdar, Maleeka Bokhari and among others, did not take much time to quit the PTI in exchange for their release from jails of simply fearing prison.

Express Tribune
 
The Inspector General Police (IGP) Punjab, Dr Usman Anwar has claimed that the call data from the riots that took place on March 8 and May 9 shows significant similarities, leading to the arrest of perpetrators after successful identification.

On March 8, Ali Bilal alias Zillay Shah, allegedly died of police violence and torture after their personnel launched a crackdown on PTI activists and supporters staging a rally near party chief Imran Khan’s Zaman Town residence in Lahore to kick off its election campaign.

The Punjab police chief had later rejected the PTI’s claim that the provincial administration was responsible for the alleged murder of its activist Ali Bilal, saying his death was caused by a “road accident” and “unfortunately misinterpreted”.

Addressing a press conference in Lahore today, the IGP Punjab, flanked by other senior officers, revealed that out of the total calls analysed, 154 calls were found to be identical, while Yasmin Rashid was responsible for 41 calls.

Additionally, he said that the identities of 170 individuals involved in the incidents were traced through WhatsApp groups.

Further shedding light on the events that transpired on May 9, the IGP Punjab explained that the attacks were meticulously planned and carried out simultaneously at specific targets, including Jinnah House, GHQ, and Radio Pakistan, among others.

Read more: Jinnah House attack: ATC orders Yasmin Rashid’s release

“We have record of each call made during these incidents and we are presenting them as evidence in court,” he added.

Dr Anwar highlighted that even the Pakistan Air Force was targeted during these incidents. He expressed concern over the desecration of martyrs' memorials on May 9 and denounced the propagation of propaganda against media organisations on social media platforms.

Earlier in the day, the Punjab police announced approaching the high court against the verdict of an anti-terrorism court in Lahore which ordered the release of PTI leader Yasmin Rashid in the Jinnah House attack case.

In a statement issued on Sunday through the police department’s official Twitter handle, they said that “all conspirators, planners, and perpetrators of the May 9 incident, including Dr Yasmin Rashid, would be brought to justice.”

The statement also maintained that the investigation is being carried out on “scientific lines”.

“The court order is being challenged as police were not given the opportunity to present forensic evidence in the case. The court (ATC) order will attain finality after the order of the High Court,” added the statement.

In an unprecedented show of vandalism on May 9, protestors allegedly belonging to the PTI vandalised public and private properties and even attacked the Army's General Headquarters in Rawalpindi and the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence, a historic building which was once the Lahore residence of the founder of the nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The attack took place hours after paramilitary Rangers personnel arrested the party chairman in the Al-Qadir Trust corruption case, later retitled as the £190 million National Crime Agency scandal, on the orders of the National Accountability Bureau, from the Islamabad High Court premises.

The rioting was followed by a harsh crackdown against the former ruling party leaders and workers. Several senior PTI leaders have since been arrested, and many have dissociated themselves from the party.

Express Tribune
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I have never asked our workers to indulge in violence in my 27 years of politics. Therefore, the events of 9th may first took me by surprise and then it did not take long for me to discover that the whole charade from my violent arrest to the arson to the nazi era type crackdown,… <a href="https://t.co/nP4qhiZbzV">pic.twitter.com/nP4qhiZbzV</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1665765691109040128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
A constitutional petition was filed in the Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday on behalf of civil society members to challenge the trial of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952.

The two laws have been put into use to penalize protesting vandals and rioters who attacked state and military installations - including Jinnah House, which currently serves as Lahore Corps Commander House, and the military’s General Headquarters (GHQ) among other damages caused in residential and official premises associated with the state and military - on May 9 and 10.
 
25 civilians court-martialled during PTI tenure
Inamur Rahiem says former PM has no moral high ground to criticise recent trials

Colonel (retd) Inamur Rahiem, a famous lawyer who has been representing various accused in military courts, has revealed that 25 civilians faced court martial during the rule of former prime minister Imran Khan.

“Trying civilians in military courts is lawful [in some cases] but 25 people faced military court trials when Imran Khan was the prime minister. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief, therefore, has no moral high ground to oppose military trials now,” Rahiem said on Sunday, while speaking to The Express Tribune.

He said military courts gave death sentences to three of these people while others were sentenced to 10-year to 15-year imprisonment for violating the Official Secret Act, 1923. He said neither the convicts were given a counsel of their choice nor were they allowed to present witnesses in their defence.

Rahiem said he, as counsel for these accused later, challenged all these 25 convictions in the Lahore High Court (LHC). The LHC suspended the death sentences and the cases are still pending. Human rights and political activist Idris Khattak was among these 25 people, he added.

He said Articles of a fair trial –9, 10, 10-A – should be followed even if the civil and military leaders have decided to hold the trial of the perpetrators of the May 9 attacks in the military courts under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and the Official Secrets Act,1923.

Rahiem said Article 9, 10, 10-A deal with the security of persons, safeguards as to arrest and detention, and the right to fair trial. He said the decision to hold trials of civilians in military courts has already been challenged in the Supreme Court. “Let’s see what the SC finally decides.”

He recalled that the military courts established in the past had stopped functioning when the Supreme Court ruled in the Sheikh Liaquat case that there was no need for military or parallel courts as a judicial system was already working in the country.

“The democratic government should try to strengthen the existing judicial system,” he said.

Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) President Ahmed Bilal Mehboob said trying civilians for certain offences committed against military personnel and properties under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 is provided for in the law.

“Neither the PPP [Pakistan Peoples Party], the PML-N [Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz] nor the PTI ever tried to amend this law,” he added.

The Pildat chief said trying civilians under the army act will, therefore, be lawful. However, he added, he would plead against trying civilians under the army act on political grounds “with the exception of those who are directly found involved in the planning and attacking military installations”.

When asked what message will the military court trials send to the international community, Mehboob said many countries, including the US, have adopted extraordinary measures when their vital interests were attacked in the past. Having said that, he added, the “military trial of civilians especially of Imran Khan will not send a positive message about the democratic system in Pakistan.”

...
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2421287/25-civilians-court-martialled-during-pti-tenure
 
NA, Senate demand May 9 trials under Army Act
Assembly resolution says the political party, its chairman crossed all limits in their actions against institutions

The National Assembly on Monday passed a resolution calling upon the government to complete process for start of trial of all those involved in attacks on military buildings and installations on May 9, under the Army Act 1952 without any delay.

The National Assembly, on the resolution moved by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, noted that all over the world, it is the armed forces which could take action against elements who are involved in attacking military installations.

The House noted that there is constitutional and legal protection in Pakistan against such elements. “Therefore, all the formalities be completed without any delay so that such people are given exemplary punishment under the Army Act 1952. The National Assembly noted that a political party and its chairman crossed all the limits in their actions against institutions concerning the country’s security and they attacked military installations.

“The actions of this party and its chairman caused irreparable loss to the country, state and state institutions,” the resolution said, adding that process against them under the Constitution and law should be complete without delay of even a single day.

The House noted that even the leaders and workers of the same party were refusing to share burden of anti-state activities of their party and party chairman, and they also expressed disassociation with the chairman and attackers. “It also certifies this party and its head are following anti-state agenda,” the resolution observed.

The House also declared that there has been no violation of human rights while taking action against such miscreants and a smear propaganda campaign is being run based on fake and vulgar allegations without any truth.

Maulana Abdul Akbar Chitrali of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), however, opposed trial of people involved in May 09 violence under the Army Act 1952. “This law is meant to take legal action against those elements who are involved in actions which can be expected only from the enemy,” he said.

...
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1079805-na-senate-demand-may-9-trials-under-army-act
 
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar on Wednesday insisted that trials under army laws meet the “internationally acknowledged minimum requirements” that form the basis of a fair trial.

The minister expressed his views while speaking to the media after a meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council in Islamabad, around a month after the government decided to try the suspects accused of attacking military installations on May 9 under army laws.

To lend strength to his argument, he particularly cited Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 regarding a fair trial, which he said gave the right to appoint a counsel of choice, reduce defence evidence, have access to the relevant record and seek a judicial review.

The army laws “covered all these [aspects] and that is why it is said that they meet the internationally acknowledged minimum requirements pertaining to the procedure and law”, he added.

When asked whether any “special considerations” were being mulled regarding the trial of women under army laws, the minister replied: “Matters [pertaining to military trials] will be decided according to the operation of the law. It is not the choice of the federal government or any institution.

“The relevant institution will proceed on this in line with how they are satisfied with the [available] material.”
 
PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan has moved the Supreme Court against the authorities’ decision to try the suspects of May 9 riots — during which public and private properties, including army installations, were vandalised amid protests sparked by the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan — in military courts.

The veteran politician filed a plea challenging the decision in the apex court on Saturday, recalling that the Pakistan Army had decided during a Corps Commanders Conference on May 15 to “try civilians during peacetime for civil offences i.e. those allegedly involved in the May 9 incidents … in military courts established under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952”.

The decision was “rubber-stamped” by the federal cabinet on May 19 and reiterated by the Formation Commanders’ Conference on June 7, the plea added.

It said in addition to challenging this decision, the petitioner was also moving the court against “various laws which provide for the trial of civilians in military courts”.


“Moreover, through resolutions moved by … [Defence Minister] Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the National Assembly purports to have endorsed the decisions to try civilians in military courts on May 22 and June 12.”

The plea contended that “the trial of civilians by military authorities and military forums during peacetime and for essentially civilian offences is a complete anathema to the constitutional separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the inalienable right of every Pakistani to be treated in accordance with law, and the fundamental rights of life, liberty, fair trial, and due process”.

“They are alien to our constitutional and democratic dispensation and are, therefore, liable to be set aside.”

For these reasons, the plea said, “it is the petitioner’s case that the trial of civilians in military courts, especially under the present circumstances, is illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory, violative of fundamental rights given in various provisions of the Constitution … and merits to be declared as such”.

Moreover, it said the petitioner believed that the decision to “try certain individuals allegedly linked with May 9 incidents is [also] illegal and unconstitutional”.

The plea further stated that Ahsan was “deeply aggrieved by the illegal and unconstitutional actions being carried out in the country over the past few months (including the brazen refusal to hold elections within the period prescribed by the Constitution), but especially the decision to try certain civilians in military courts impugned herein”.

Mentioning that the decision to hold trials in military courts was “primarily motivated by widely condemned incidents of violence which took place across the country in reaction to” the arrest of the PTI chief, the plea clarified that it “does not seek to defend any person who may actually be involved in the wanton and despicable violence nor does it seek the acquittal of any such persons”.

“The primary purpose of this petition is to ensure that none of the thousands of civilians who have admittedly been arrested for allegedly having partaken in that violence and who have been and are being nominated for trial before the military courts be tried by the military courts.”

The plea said: “No defence is being made herein with respect to those against whom there might be legally tenable evidence of their participation [in May 9 violence] but what is indeed being sought even on their behalf is that they also be tried according to due process and fair trial by courts.”

The plea also highlighted that a “large-scale crackdown” was initiated against the PTI after May 9, which included “media blackouts, breaking and entry into homes and private quarters, vandalisation of private property, arrests and disappearances of citizens, including journalists, who speak out in their favour, as well as the registration of a large number of FIRs against them”.

Citing media reports, the plea said the Formation Commanders’ Conference had “come to the conclusion that the evidence so far collected [in May 9 cases] is incapable of contradiction and irrefutable”.

“Which military court will be daring enough to dispute this unambiguous albeit premature finality of guilt decreed by perhaps the most authoritative forum in the Pakistan Army?” the plea raised the question.

Moreover, since the decision on military trials was initially taken by the army and later endorsed by the government, “as such, … [it] has not been taken by the federal government itself, but instead has been done at the behest of the Pakistan Army”, the plea argued. “This is the most conspicuous form of abdication of authority by the civilian administration.”

Referring to multiple previous cases, the plea drew the conclusion that the “law, as it stands today, simply does not allow for civilian trials in military courts”.

“The very decision to set up military courts to try civilians is without jurisdiction and amounts to corum non judice (a legal term used to indicate legal proceeding carried out outside the presence of a judge),” it added.

According to the plea, “the only window, in recent times, that was allowed to military courts to try civilians was provided by the Constitution (21st) Amendment Act I of 2015 and Constitution (23rd) Amendment Act of 2017.

“[With] both the said acts having expired in January 2019 … there is no scope for any military court now to try any civilian.”

“Any attempt to cause a so-called trial of civilians before military courts amounts to an action that suffers from lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction and malice of law,” it added.

The plea also highlighted that military trials were also in violation of international covenants and Articles 9, 10A and 175 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the plea said only some of the May 9 suspects were being tried under army laws, hence, “resulting in discrimination and a violation of Article 25, which mandates that all similarly placed persons should be dealt with equally”.

The plea stressed that the trials of alleged perpetrators of the events of May 9 be tried in open court under full public scrutiny.

It went on to allege that the “illegal infliction of military courts upon large and unspecified sections of civilian citizens of Pakistan, be they innocent bystanders, by an imperfect and often misleading process of ‘geo-fencing’ is mainly due to the intense malice and ill-will between” Khawaja Asif, Rana Sanaullah and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on the one hand, and the PTI chief on the other.

It also argued that the trial of civilians under the Army Act “is patently mala fide (both in fact and law) as it is meant to create awe and fear in the population at large against their support of a particular political party”.

The plea moved the court to declare that the trial of civilians before military courts under the Army Act was not permitted and violative of, inter alia, Articles 4, 9, 10A and 175 of the Constitution.

The plea also sought the declaration of Sections 2(1)(d)(ii) and 59(4) of the Army Act as ultra vires to the Constitution, or in the alternative, the court’s declaration that they cannot be invoked for the offences allegedly committed on during the events of May 9 and covered under subsequent FIRs.

Moreover, it urged the court to “declare that Section 94 of the Army Act and the 1970 Rules are inherently discriminatory, in direct violation of, inter alia, Articles 25 and 175 of the Constitution and void”.

The plea also prayed the court to declare “the referral of trials of various accused by the ATCs to military courts is the result of a lack of application of mind by the ATCs and hence, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Sections 94 and 95 of the Army Act, as well as Articles 25 and 175 of the Constitution”.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Advocate Uzair Bhandari is one of the most respected senior lawyers of the Supreme Court.<br><br>He held a meeting with me regarding the military courts which we will be challenging in the courts.<br> <br>On his way out he was abducted by those who cannot be named because they are above law.… <a href="https://t.co/zgdCO9w6mf">https://t.co/zgdCO9w6mf</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1670118187629703168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The role of the military court is to process cases related to ongoing crimes within military. Hence the word military court.

However, in Pakistan a bad precedent was set when we started cases of terrorism in military courts. At the time, no one batted an eye because back then it was just terrorists and anyone who would raise a voice against it would be painted as terrorists sympathiser.

But the thing about setting precedent is that ultimately it comes back to bite you. Now everyone under the sun can be tried in military courts because the lines were blurred and no one knows what cases can and cannot be tried under military courts.

The results are here for everyone to see.
 
MenInG said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Advocate Uzair Bhandari is one of the most respected senior lawyers of the Supreme Court.<br><br>He held a meeting with me regarding the military courts which we will be challenging in the courts.<br> <br>On his way out he was abducted by those who cannot be named because they are above law.… <a href="https://t.co/zgdCO9w6mf">https://t.co/zgdCO9w6mf</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1670118187629703168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Tell me something new.
 
Former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Jawwad S Khawaja has also challenged the coalition government’s decision to hold trials of May 9 rioters in military courts, asking if civilian institutions including the Supreme Court can endorse “militarisation of justice”.

"This case is also about power flowing from the barrel of a gun. It is about the power of the army. The army controls businesses and land. Historically, it has exercised power and influence over our political dispensation. Its power and reach extend far beyond its constitutional role. If not a state within a state, it is regarded as an entity distinct from the government and referred to as the ‘establishment’.

“The question for our civilian institutions including this court is whether the militarization of justice will be endorsed,” said a 39-page constitution petition filed through Khwaja Ahmad Hosain advocate.

The former top judge asked if Pakistanis as a nation want to march backwards in time "with banners flying and drums beating to old tunes".

“Or do we see a better tomorrow with public officeholders and institutions operating within constitutionally assigned domains? It is a fundamental question that continues to plague us as a nation. The answer will shape the future," he added.

He said trials of civilians in military courts do not meet international fair trial standards: the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed, there is no right to a reasoned judgment, there are no details about where trials are conducted, and even the details of the charges are kept secret.

“The decision to try civilians by military courts when the civilian courts are functioning is incompatible with the Constitution and a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed therein.”

The petitioner noted that all four types of court martial—general court martial, district court martial, summary court martial, and field general court martial—are not impartial or independent tribunals.

“The ‘judges’ are all serving officers of the military. They do not have any legal training, security of tenure, or other prerequisites which underpin judicial independence.

“All those involved in the proceedings of the court martial are part of and dependent on the executive branch from appointment until retirement,” he added.

The petitioner said trials in military courts lack transparency. The hearings are held in private and behind closed doors. Section 93 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 states, “persons subject to this Act who commits any offence against it may be tried and punished for such offence in any place whatsoever.”

“There is little to no information on how and where these trials are held. An open and transparent process prior to a finding of guilt is a feature of Islamic jurisprudence. Members of the public need to be given access to hearings and the proceedings must be public.

“This helps ensure that the people are informed, and justice is seen to be done.”

He said in military courts, there is also no right to a reasoned judgment. “According to the International Commission of Jurists, the military courts have a 99.2% conviction rate. This is disproportionately higher compared to the civilian courts.”

The petitioner requested the apex court to declare court martial of civilians and Article 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 unconstitutional.

Alleged supporters and workers of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party on May 9 vandalized and set fire to state and army properties and memorials after authorities arrested PTI chief Imran Khan from the premises of a court in the federal capital.

A week after the incident, the country’s military leadership called for holding trials of the rioters in military courts under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and the Official Secret Act, 1923. The country’s civilian government endorsed the decision on May 16.

Later dozens of alleged rioters were handed over to military authorities for their court martial. Meanwhile a number of petitioners including the PTI chief Imran Khan, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Aitzaz Ahsan and some members of civil society challenged the move.

The apex court has, however, not yet taken up any of the petitions.

Express Tribune
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Former Chief Justice Jawad S Khawaja writes a petition in SC against Military Courts and warns how we are destroying the future of Pakistan. <a href="https://t.co/eIZpFAsikA">pic.twitter.com/eIZpFAsikA</a></p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1671406116901724161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
The Supreme Court (SC) constituted on Wednesday a nine-member bench — led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and including his successor to-be Justice Qazi Faez Isa — to hear a set of four petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts.

Besides the two senior-most judges, Justices Sardar Tariq Masood, Ijazul Ahsan, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Justice, Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik are included in the bench.

According to the SC cause list, the bench will take up the four petitions tomorrow (Thursday) at 11:45am.

Multiple petitions have been filed in the SC after the army indicated that suspects booked in cases pertaining to the May 9 riots — during which several public and private properties, including military installations, were vandalised amid countrywide protests sparked by the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan — should be tried under army laws, which the government subsequently endorsed.

Petitioners in three of the pleas are the PTI chief himself, veteran politician Aitzaz Ahsan and former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja.

A fourth plea has been filed by Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research Chef Executive Karamat Ali, former Karachi Metropolitan Corporation administrator Fahim Zaman Khan, Aurat Foundation Director Mahnaz Rahman, educationist Prof Dr AH Nayyar and clinical psychologist and educationist Syed Zulfiqar Hussain Gilani.
 
The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) investigating the Jinnah House attack on May 9 has summoned five suspects, including the chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, at 7pm this evening, Express News reported.

The JIT, in its summon, has instructed Civil Line and Model Town police to ensure the presence of all five suspects including the former prime minister.

Apart from the PTI chief, JIT has also summoned Imran’s wife Bushra Bibi, his nephew Hassan Khan Niazi and PTI leaders Hammad Azhar and Murad Saeed.

JIT said that the suspects have been summoned in a case filed on May 10 which includes charges of murder, attempted murder, vandalism, arson, and terrorism.

Yesterday, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore issued a non-bailable arrest warrant for the PTI chief and other party leaders.

The non-bailable arrest warrants were also issued for PTI leaders Hammad Azhar, Mian Aslam Iqbal and others. The court issued a non-bailable arrest warrant at the request of the investigating officer.

Chaos broke out across the country on May 9 when protestors took to the streets in retaliation to the PTI chief’s arrest from Islamabad High Court premises by troops of the paramilitary Rangers.

Rioters resorted to vandalism of state property including the Lahore Corps Commander’s House (Jinnah House) and the military’s General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi.

The government blocked internet services for four days in a bid to quell protests, restricted access to social media in the days that followed and has launched a severe crackdown against suspects allegedly involved in the rioting.

Several PTI leaders have broken away from the party since then with some renouncing politics altogether. Several of these leaders announced their decisions after multiple arrests and detentions.
 
The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday sought the record of all those arrested in the country post-May 9, when violent protests broke out in the country following the arrest of PTI Chairman Imran Khan.

The directives came as a newly formed seven-member bench, down from a nine-member bench, resumed hearing a set of petitions challenging the trial of civilians in military courts.

Earlier today, a nine-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Isa, Justice Mas*o**od, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yayha Afridi, Justice Sayyed Ma**zahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik had taken up the case.

However, Justice Isa had stated that he did not consider “this bench a bench”. He also said that he could not be a part of any bench until the case relating to the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 — which aims to deprive the office of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity and which has since become law — was decided.
 
CJP-led SC bench takes up petitions against civilians' military trials
Supreme Court had asked AGP Mansoor Awan to provide details of all the cases filed, suspects arrested post-May 9

A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court on Friday resumed hearing constitutional pleas against the trials of civilians in military courts in the wake of the May 9 violent protests.

The government had decided to try civilians in military courts after enraged protesters belonging to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) vandalised army installations following the arrest of their party chief.

The petitions, separately filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (Piler) Executive Director Karamat Ali, have requested the apex court to declare the military trials unconstitutional.

A nine-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had taken up the pleas on Thursday. However, the bench was dissolved after two members, Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Tariq Masood, object to it.

Taking an exception to the bench's formation, Justice Isa said he "did not consider the nine-member bench a bench", with Justice Masood backing him.

Justice Isa stressed that the court should first issue a verdict on the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023, and then constitute new benches.

CJP Bandial had said as the two senior judges had raised questions over the bench, the stay order on the law might be lifted.

The hearing was then resumed by a seven-member bench, — comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi.

The chief justice, before adjourning the hearing said that the top court would "quickly" wrap up the case and asked the government to provide complete details of the arrests made after the May 9 mayhem.

"It is not right to issue stay orders on everything," the CJP said when asked by Latif Khosa — the council for Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan.

...
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1...s-petitions-against-civilians-military-trials
 
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan told the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday that 102 people were in the army’s custody as the top court resumed hearing pleas challenging the trials of civilians in military courts.

A seven-member bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yayha Afridi, Justice Sayyed Ma**zahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik heard the set of petitions.

A day earlier, the CJP had ignored a request to issue an interim or a stay order to stop the trial of civilians in the military courts, saying it was not possible without hearing the arguments of AGP Awan first.

While issuing notice to the respondents, the court had asked the AGP to furnish the total number of detained suspects in civil and military custody on account of offences allegedly committed by them on May 9.
 
Military courts trial: SC likely to announce verdict on Tuesday

Supreme Court (SC) likely to announce verdict on pleas challenging trials of civilians in military courts, on Tuesday, ARY News reported.

A seven-member bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, is hearing a set of petitions against military trials after a nine-member bench was dissolved as Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Tariq Masood recused themselves from the hearing.

We desire to get the results by Tuesday, CJP was quoted as saying while hearing the case. The apex court also directed to avoid harassing lawyers and journalists. “Don’t want to pass judicial order on the issue.”

During the hearing, CJP Bandial remarked that the army can request the anti-terrorism courts to get the custody of civilians for their trial under military laws.

“It’s common sense that crimes under the Official Secrets Act are to be determined by the army itself and it can request anti-terrorism courts seeking the custody of civilians for trials under army laws,” the top judge remarked.

However, he noted that there was no solid reasoning provided by the military. “We will ask this from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan.

The further hearing on the case has been adjourned until Monday at 9:30 in the morning.

ARY
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If anyone had any doubts about law of the jungle prevailing in Pakistan where might is right, all those doubts should be removed after the recent statements of the government ministers openly refusing to obey the SC verdict if its against military courts.<br><br>It also reflects the…</p>— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI/status/1672543581008019458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
In a bid to “sensitise” the seven-member bench seized with petitions against trials of civilians in the military courts to the gravity of May 9 violence, the federal government is “seriously considering” playing footage of violent attacks on military and government buildings in Courtroom No 1.

“We want to sensitise the court to the gravity of the situation for which it is essential to show the video footage,” said Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan while talking to Dawn. He said the government intended to run the clips of violent incidents, which occurred following the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan on May 9, inside Courtroom No 1.

The government is likely to play different clips showing attacks in cantonments of Lahore, Mianwali, Rawalpindi, and Mardan, particularly attacks on the Lahore corps commander’s house and the General Head*quarters in Rawalpindi.

It is likely that the footage would be shown on Tuesday when it will be the government’s turn to advance arguments through AGP Awan.
 
PPP dissident leader and senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan on Saturday submitted additional documents to the Supreme Court to back his petition against the trial of civilians in military courts.

The documents were submitted to the top court through a civil miscellaneous application.

They read that in an earlier decision, the SC had held that its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution could be invoked by an individual and the constitutional petition filed by such an individual was maintainable if the matter assailed involved a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of their fundamental rights.

They added that the SC had ruled in that decision that the trial of civilians in the military courts under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 was violative of articles 4, 9, 10,10A, 14, 25 & 175 of the Constitution.

The documents read that the SC had declared that sections 2(1)(d)(ii) & 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and the Criminal Procedure Rules made thereunder were ultra vires to the Constitution and void.

The SC had held that the trial of civilians by the military courts was beyond the scope of Article 175 of the Constitution and violative of fundamental rights.

The documents cited the decision of an SC nine-judge bench, which had declared that allowing the establishment of the military courts for the trial of civilians was unconstitutional, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

They mentioned another case, in which the top court ruled that the trials of civilians in the military courts was an exception and could never be the rule.

However, the SC noted that the gravity of the situation faced by the country back then and the intensity of the armed conflict warranted its description as a “threat of war”, permitting the trial of civilians by the military courts.

They added that the court had held that the provisions of the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015 specifically provided that the offence must be committed by a person known or claiming to be member of a terrorist group or organisation using the name of religions or sects.

In addition, these people in furtherance of their terrorist design waged war against the country.

The documents cited another case, where the top court had held that the intention of the framers of clause (d) was clearly that even civilians or persons who had never been, in any way, connected with the army should be made subject to it in certain circumstances gravely affecting the maintenance of the military’s discipline.

“The nexus required is gravely affecting the maintenance of discipline in the army. The nexus required is that they should be persons who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to the Army Act from his duty or allegiance to government,” the judgment read.

The apex court has set the date of June 26 to hear the case of pleas against the trial of civilians in the military courts.

In the miscellaneous petition, it has been argued that the documents were important for the speedy disposal of the case.

It also asked the SC to make the documents part of the case record keeping in mind the requirements of justice.
 
It's like two types of laws exist in Pakistan. One law that is above all, and the other which is non existant.
 
The Supreme Court bench hearing the petitions filed against the trial of civilians in military courts dissolved for the second time on Monday, after the federal government raised objections against the inclusion of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in the bench.

The News PK
 
I believe Bandial will not declare military courts unlawful. The CJ is scared and he wants to save face. Tomorrow is his last day in office and he does not want to create controversy. And, even if he gives a judgement against military courts, the verdict would be ignored like the poll date verdict.
 
daytrader said:
The Supreme Court bench hearing the petitions filed against the trial of civilians in military courts dissolved for the second time on Monday, after the federal government raised objections against the inclusion of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in the bench.

The News PK
Click to expand...

saeedhk said:
I believe Bandial will not declare military courts unlawful. The CJ is scared and he wants to save face. Tomorrow is his last day in office and he does not want to create controversy. And, even if he gives a judgement against military courts, the verdict would be ignored like the poll date verdict.
Click to expand...

This is the state of Pakistan's democracy and judiciary. Nothing more to say
 
No trial of civilian has commenced in military courts, AGP informs SC
ISPR DG said Monday that proceedings against 102 people handed over for trial were underway

No trial of any civilian has commenced in military courts as of yet, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the Supreme Court Tuesday during the fourth hearing of the petitions filed against the trial of civilians in military courts.

In yesterday's hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had asked the AGP to "reassure" him that no such trial would occur as long as the case was being heard in the court.

The AGP had confirmed that no trial of civilians was underway.

However, later in the evening, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General (DG) Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said that proceedings against the 102 people handed over for trial were already underway.

A six-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, is hearing the petitions against the government's decision to try civilians in military courts.

The government announced that those involved in the violence that erupted on May 9 — in which several government buildings and army installations were vandalised — would be tried under army laws.

The petitions, separately filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and five civil society members, including Piler Executive Director Karamat Ali, have requested the apex court to declare the military trials unconstitutional.

During the previous hearings, ex-CJP's lawyer Khawaja Ahmed Hussain, petitioner Aitzaz Ahsan's counsel Latif Khosa, and civil society lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja completed their arguments.

'Conflicting statement'
After the AGP's clarification, the PTI chief's counsel took to the rostrum at the start of the hearing and said that the AGP and the ISPR DG had conflicting statements.

"A press conference was held by ISPR DG yesterday in which he talked about the trial of 102 people. The Attorney General and ISPR DG have conflicting statements," he said.

To this, the AGP responded: "I stand by my statement even today."

He added that the representatives of the Ministry of Defence were present in the court and could explain the situation better.

At this, Justice Ayesha observed: "We are currently reviewing existing judicial precedents."

Moreover, the CJP expressed faith in the AGP's statement, directing the court's attention to the matter at hand.

'Can civilians be tried under Army Act?'
Lawyer Bhandri then resumed his arguments pertaining to the case, contending that civilians cannot be tried in military courts.

"I will not talk about the trial of soldiers and the powers of the court," he said.

"However, whether a crime can come under the Army Act or not is a different question," he said, adding that it must be determined whether there can be a trial [of a civilian] in military courts for crimes related to the forces.

Justice Ahsan remarked that Article 175(3) of the appointment of judges came in 1986.

"In comparison to the judicial precedents you are talking about, the circumstances and events are completely different now," he observed.

Justice Munib then asked Bhandari what protection the Constitution gave civilians that military officers did not have.

Bhandari responded that the fundamental rights mentioned in the Constitution do not apply to military personnel and officers.

"My arguments will be against the military trial of civilians only. I have nothing to do with the issue of trial against soldiers," he added.

Bhandari also submitted that Parliament could not allow civilian trials in military courts without a constitutional amendment, adding that in the 21st constitutional amendment, the principle was established that a constitutional amendment is required for trying civilians [under the Army Act].

Justice Ayesha asked: "[But] what if there is an aspect of an internal relationship, then can't the civilian be tried in the military courts?"

Justice Ahsan further observed: "Principles such as threats to war and defense of domestic relations are laid down in the judgment of the 21st Amendment case."

The News PK
 
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan told the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday that civilian’s trials in military courts had not yet started.

He made the remarks as a six-member bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Ma**zahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik, resumed hearing pleas challenging the trials of civilians in military courts.

A day before, Director General Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR) Maj Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said in a press conference that military courts were indispensable to hold perpetrators and facilitators of the May 9 violence accountable, adding that 102 individuals were facing trials in these courts.

During yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing — during which Justice Mansoor Ali Shah left the bench after the government raised objections — CJP Bandial observed that he expected that no trial of any individuals, accused of committing violence on May 9, would commence in military courts while the apex court was hearing the matter.


In today’s hearing, the lawyers present asked the court to order a stay on trying civilians in military courts.

“No trial has started as yet and that also takes time. The accused will have time to hire lawyers first,” the AGP said, adding that copies of the investigation would also be provided before the trials commence.

The lawyers, however, told the AGP to make his statement part of the record as it “contradicted” the statement given by the army’s spokesperson a day earlier. The court subsequently rejected the request for issuing a stay order.

“Ensure the suspects speak to their families today,” Justice Bandial told the AGP. “Alert me immediately if something happens. I will be available from next week,” the CJP said.

“The AGP has assured the court that trials are not commencing forthwith. We are looking at this positively,” he said. The top judge that the hearing would resume after Eid and told the AGP to “take care” of those in custody. The hearing was then adjourned for an indefinite

The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Abid Zuberi came to the stand and told the court that he had also filed a plea on the matter. He urged the court to let him present his arguments.

“We are happy to see that a plea has come from the SCBA,” the CJP remarked, adding that “good arguments” would be welcomed. Justice Bandial told Zuberi to prepare his arguments, adding that the court would come back to the plea later.

Subsequently, PTI chief Imran Khan’s lawyer Uzair Bhandari resumed his arguments in the case and said that a civilian could not be court-martialled. Referring to yesterday’s press conference by the military, he said that ISPR Director General spokesperson Maj Gen Ahmed Sharif Chau*dhry stated that 102 people would be tried in military courts.

However, Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan interjected and said, “I stand by what I said yesterday, that 102 people are not being tried.”

During yesterday’s hearing, the AGP had stated that the cases of 102 detained persons were at the investigation stage and it was likely that the number could reduce as their cases could be sent to normal courts after the probe was completed.

During today’s hearing, AGP Awan said that the representatives of the Ministry of Defence were also present, who would support his stance.

“We believe you,” CJP Bandial told the AGP.

“We need to make it clear whether the accused were taken into custody under Section 2(d)(i) of the Official Secrets Act or Section 2(d)(ii),” Justice Afridi said.

“Initially, they were detained under Section 2(d)(ii) but the consequences of Section 2(d)(i) may also be applicable,” AGP Awan told the court.

“What is interesting is that the allegations against the suspects are not related to the Official Secrets Act,” CJP Bandial remarked. Justice Ayesha also inquired about the criteria for deciding which court suspects would be tried in.

“In the Liaquat Hussain case, it was made clear that not every case can be tried in military courts, rather it needs to be proven that the case is linked to the Army Act,” the CJP said.

Lawyer Bhandari also argued that Parliament could not approve civilian trials in military courts without carrying out a constitutional amendment. He said that the 21st Amendment had laid down the principle that trial of civilians required a constitutional amendment.

“If there is an aspect of internal matters, then also a civilian trial in military courts can’t be held?” Justice Ayesha asked. Justice Afridi remarked that such matters, which related to the country’s defence, had been decided in the 21st Amendment.

“The situation is clear after yesterday’s ISPR press conference,” Justice Afridi observed.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan said that the court could not ignore past examples of civilians being tried in military courts. At the same time, he said that past examples had different realities and different reasons.

Bhandari contended that any military trial of a civilian could only happen through a constitutional amendment.

Justice Akhtar, however, stated that a military trial could take place during an emergency or during war time. “Civilian trials cannot be conducted in military courts when fundamental rights are not suspended,” he said.

The PTI’s chief’s lawyer replied that the 21st Amendment stated that military trials could only happen when there was a war-like situation.

“Our Constitution, laws and fundamental rights have evolved over the years. The Constitution now includes Article 10-A [right to fair trial] which must be looked into,” Bhandari said.

He went on to say that Article 175(3), which mandates the complete separation of the judiciary from the executive, talked about judicial structures while Articles 9 and 10 talked about fundamental rights. “All these articles may be separate, but they are connected,” he argued.

Bhandari contended that fundamental rights required a judge appointed under Article 175(3) to conduct the trial. “Court-martialling a civilian does not leave a good impression on the judicial system and no one has allowed it happily,” he added, adding that civilians’ military trials would cause unease in the country.

He further said that the first information reports (FIRs) against the suspects did not mention the Official Secrets Act. “The army is involved in various things, including sports. If something happens there, then will be Army Act be invoked?” he asked.

“When you talk about an army man, then the most important thing is morale. If morale is affected then it benefits the enemy. Lowering their morale is also a crime,” CJP Bandial said. The top judge observed that army officials were ready to render sacrifices for the country due to their high morale.

Justice Ahsan added that the Official Secrets Act could only be invoked when the act had benefitted the enemy.

Justice Ayesha observed that for a trial under the Army Act, the alleged offence had to fall under the Official Secrets Act. She then asked the lawyer to inform the court about the Official Secrets Act.

Bhandari said that under the act, attacking an area that was off limits or carrying out an act that would benefit that enemy was a crime.

Justice Ayesha then said that an area that was off limits had either war plans or sensitive installations.

The hearing was then adjourned for a short break. When it resumed, Justice Naqvi wondered whether bail could be granted in cases under the Official Secrets Act.

“Yes, bail can be granted,” Bhandari said, but he reiterated that the Official Secrets Act was not mentioned in the FIRs. He said that after making an amendment, the act was paired with Protection of Pakistan Act to include anti-terrorism provisions.

Referring to the case against poet Ahmad Faraz, Bhandari said the judge had observed that Faraz could not be tried in a military court because he had not been formally charged.

“How can army authorities arrest someone without them being charged?” CJP Bandial asked. “How can accusations be made without any evidence? This matter is beyond comprehension,” CJP Bandial said.

Justice Akhtar also inquired how the investigation would take place under the Army Act and how charges would be formed against the suspects.

“This is exactly what I am saying. The Army Act is incomplete in this regard,” the lawyer replied.

At one point, Justice Ahsan noted that there were no charges against the suspects at the moment. However, Bhandari pointed out that first information reports against the suspects were lodged under the anti-terrorism laws while trials were being conducted under the Army Act.

“It is beyond my understanding how the army can arrest someone when there is no evidence,” CJP Bandial observed. Justice Akhtar added that a magistrate could also not take action against the accused until a police report was submitted.

“Taking action against anyone without any evidence is ridiculous,” the CJP said.

Bandhari further contended that the arrests by army officers were unlawful. At that, the CJP remarked, “Accusing a person without evidence is useless.”

Justice Ahsan also noted that the cases against the suspects were registered under the Pakistan Penal Code. “It is understandable that the suspects are first arrested and then investigated,” Justice Akhtar remarked.

Bhandari further said that in his client’s opinion, the decision to try civilians in military courts was based on ill intent. He also noted that some voices were speaking against military trials of civilians. Wrapping up his arguments, he urged the court to conduct an open trial.

When AGP Awan came to the rostrum, he said that he would submit written arguments about the trials in military courts. He contended that the charges against the accused were provided when seeking their custody.

He said that after the events of May 9, 15 days passed before the process for the handing over of suspects was initiated. Here, the CJP asked the AGP about the process of charging a suspect under the Army Act.

AGP Awan reiterated that 102 persons were in the army’s custody. He assured the court that the detained persons would be allowed to speak to their family members on the phone. He also said that the suspects would be granted permission to meet their parents, spouses, children and siblings once a week.

Here, the CJP recalled that he had visited some jails where the inmates were allowed to speak with their families on phones.

At one point, Justice Ayesha asked why the identities of the 102 suspects were being kept hidden. “Can we make the list of these people public?” she asked.

The attorney general refused, saying that they were still under investigation.

At one point, Justice Afridi asked the AGP to ensure the suspects would be allowed to talk to their families. The CJP added that all the suspects should be able to talk to their family members on Eidul Azha.

The AGP added that he would inform the bench in chambers regarding making the list of detained persons public. He assured the court that all those in custody were also being provided health facilities, adding that doctors were also present.

The AGP also said that no lawyers had been taken into custody, adding that he was aware that one journalist was missing.

“You are talking about Imran Riaz,” the CJP said. The AGP replied that he was not in the government’s custody and efforts were being made to recover him. Justice Bandial then told Awan to ensure that Riaz was found.

The CJP asked asked Awan about whether the death penalty was an issue in the cases. “The death penalty can be given in case of foreign contacts,” Awan responded.

The lawyers present during the hearing asked the court to order a stay on trying civilians in military courts. “No trial has started as yet and that also takes time. The suspects will have time to hire lawyers first,” the AGP said.

“Ensure the suspects speak to their families today,” Justice Bandial told the AGP. He said that the hearing would resume after Eid and told the AGP to “take care” of those in custody.

When AGP Awan came to the rostrum, he said that he would submit written arguments about the trials in military courts. He contended that the charges against the accused were provided when seeking their custody.

He said that after the events of May 9, 15 days passed before the process for the handing over of suspects was initiated. Here, the CJP asked the AGP about the process of charging a suspect under the Army Act.

AGP Awan reiterated that 102 persons were in the army’s custody. He assured the court that the detained persons would be allowed to speak to their family members on the phone. He also said that the suspects would be granted permission to meet their parents, spouses, children and siblings once a week.

Here, the CJP recalled that he had visited some jails where the inmates were allowed to speak with their families on phones.

At one point, Justice Ayesha asked why the identities of the 102 suspects were being kept hidden. “Can we make the list of these people public?” she asked.

The attorney general refused, saying that they were still under investigation.

At one point, Justice Afridi asked the AGP to ensure the suspects would be allowed to talk to their families. The CJP added that all the suspects should be able to talk to their family members on Eidul Azha.

The AGP added that he would inform the bench in chambers regarding making the list of detained persons public. He assured the court that all those in custody were also being provided health facilities, adding that doctors were also present.

The AGP also said that no lawyers had been taken into custody, adding that he was aware that one journalist was missing.

“You are talking about Imran Riaz,” the CJP said. The AGP replied that he was not in the government’s custody and efforts were being made to recover him. Justice Bandial then told Awan to make efforts for locating the missing anchorperson so that “he could spend Eid with his family”.

The CJP asked asked Awan about whether the death penalty was an issue in the cases. “A death penalty can be given in case of foreign contacts,” Awan responded.
 
Matters have complicated for an apex court bench hearing a slew of petitions filed against court martial of May 9 rioters after a news conference held by the military’s spokesperson and the decision of one of the bench members –- Justice Mansoor Ali Shah -- to recuse himself from the case.

The petitioners, who mostly belong to Lahore, are hoping that the bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial will give relief to the suspects, mostly PTI workers and supporters, who allegedly vandalised army installation after the arrest of the PTI chief on May 9.

However, the military establishment has expressed the resolve to take stern action not only against the culprits but also their aiders and abettors. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) director general conveyed a message that stern actions would be taken if the trials are halted.

Some experts believe it will be interesting to see who in the bench responds to the news conference. It is to be seen whether the bench suspends the trial of suspects until its final decision, if it does not conclude its proceeding today [Tuesday].

The petitioners’ attorneys may urge the Supreme Court to take notice of the ISPR news conference on a sub judice matter. However, the present bench may not take coercive steps as the judges on the bench are focusing on giving guidelines to ensure that the civilians involved in attacking military installations get a fair trial.

The judges’ remarks show that they are not satisfied with the process of handing over suspects to the military authorities without passing speaking orders by anti-terrorism court (ATC) judges.

The counsel for one of the petitioners believes that without examining vires of relevant provisions, guidelines will be dangerous as these will make the decisions of the military courts respectable.

The statement of Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan with regard to steps taken by the civilian government to ensure fair trial and due process in the military courts will be crucial. Both things are essential for the validity of the military courts’ decisions at local as well as international forums.

A senior government official, however, believes that the apex court may expand the scope of the superior courts’ review on military courts decisions.

It is an open secret that there has been mistrust between “powerful circles” and one section of the apex court since the latter invoked its suo motu jurisdiction to hold the general elections in two provinces.

Only a united Supreme Court can deal with the prevailing situation but disputes among senior judges is a hurdle to such unity.

CJP Bandial on Monday made it clear that the court has so far shown restraint despite failure of the government to implement its order but now it is time to take a step backwards.

This observation shows that the CJP may issue coercive orders against the government functionaries. But such an order cannot be implemented, if there is severe division with the institution.

A lawyer who is a well-wisher of the CJP said the court should declare these petitions non-maintainable and ask the petitioners to approach the high courts.

“When issue will land in the SC again, he [Justice Bandial] will no longer be the chief justice. I think the CJP should not conclude these proceedings expeditiously,” he added. However, another lawyer said if such an order is passed then the chief justice will lose support from pro PTI lawyers.

For the first time, the CJP on Monday questioned the moral authority of the people with "sticks' However, it is a fact that the SC's moral authority has also been undermined on account of judicial politics since the Panama Papers case.

Another challenge for the SC is that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has recused himself from the bench on account of his relationship with one of the petitioners, former CJP Jawad S Khawaja.

Now a debate has started as to what decision will be taken by the CJP in a case related to formation of an inquiry commission to probe some audio leaks. The SC has reserved its decision on a government's plea seeking recusal of the CJP from the bench on similar basis.

Some PTI lawyers said Justice Shah should have not recused himself. They describe this development as part of judicial politics. Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said that the CJP’s woes are more complex and nuanced.

Khakhar, who has been closely following judicial politics for the past several decades, said a nine-member bench could not “placate the implacable”.

“No one takes notice of the CJP nor his prayers nor his tears. The SC is ignored with impunity. Quoting English poet TS Eliot he said, “For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”

“Frankenstein’s monster is affecting the ruination of its originator. Wittingly or not, today’s recusal fits neatly into the previous recusals," he added.

"The CJP and his SC were instrumental in undermining parliamentary democracy, parliamentary opposition and reversing the course of general elections.

“A ragtag government was forced upon the nation which is now affecting the personal humiliation of the CJP and questioning the relevance as well as the legitimacy of his SC," he said

Some analysts believe the government may show a new card today in order to frustrate or delay the bench's proceedings.
 
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday said the armed forces would not be allowed to take “unconstitutional steps” as a six-judge bench heard a set of petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts, ARY News reported.

The bench, headed by the CJP and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Justice Ayesha Malik, heard the case.

At the outset of today’s hearing, the CJP expressed regret over the May 9 events and stressed that he didn’t want the “army to raise their weapons against the people of Pakistan”.
 
Military courts often operate with a level of secrecy, which can raise concerns about transparency and accountability, especially in cases involving human rights violations.

There are also concerns that military courts may not be as independent as civilian courts and might be influenced by the interests of the military establishment.
 
SC to take up pleas challenging military trials of civilians on Oct 23

A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court will take up about a dozen petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts on October 23 (Monday).

Following the May 9 violence, the National Assembly had passed a resolution demanding that the rioters be tried under the Army Act. Days later, the army had revealed that military proceedings against “102 miscreants” were under way.

Led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the bench includes Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik.

According to the cause list issued by the apex court, the hearing is scheduled to begin at 11:30am on October 23.

The pleas include those filed by the PTI, former premier Imran Khan, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan, former chief justice of Pakistan Jawwad S Khawaja, five members of the civil society, Junaid Razzaq and Zaman Khan Vardag.

The last time a six-judge SC bench had taken up challenges to the trial of civilians in military courts was on August 3.

The same month, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea, filed by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi on behalf of civil society activists, to constitute a full court for the case.

The next day, it postponed further proceedings for an indefinite period, despite requests by the petitioners to conclude and decide the matter during that week.

Ex-CJP Justice Umar Ata Bandial had observed that the court did not want to see the Pakistan Army pointing their guns at civilians, since they were meant to defend the country and its people. “The court would want to restrain the Pakistan Army from taking any unconstitutional step,” he had noted.

A day ago, CJP Qazi Faez Isa, while hearing a different petition, had observed the court intends to hear important cases — such as the trial of civilians by military courts and election matters — in the coming weeks.

During a hearing on June 27, the federal government had assured the court that, up to that date, no formal trial had commenced against 102 individuals held by military authorities in connection with the May 9 incidents of violence and arson.

Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had told the court that all the accused were still under investigation, and no trial ultimately would be conducted in a summary manner.

Recently, an application was filed before the apex court to fix the military court case as early as possible, preferably in the third week of October.

The applicant, Junaid Razzaq, had pleaded that he had been informed that the trial of civilians by the military courts had commenced in sheer violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

The applicant had pleaded that an early hearing would be in the interest of justice. Otherwise, if the trial of his son, Azam Junaid, commenced and concluded hastily, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss.

www.dawn.com

SC to take up pleas challenging military trials of civilians on Oct 23

On the same day, court will take up pleas seeking timely elections.
www.dawn.com
 
Military trials have already begun, SC informed
Govt submits application in response to apex court’s Aug 3 order

The federal government has informed the Supreme Court that military courts have initiated trials for individuals who allegedly attacked military installations and memorials on May 9, following the arrest of PTI chief Imran Khan.

"To safeguard the interests of the accused persons, it is imperative that their trials are conducted and concluded so that those who may merit acquittal can be acquitted, and those who may merit minor sentences and have already served time in custody can also be released.

“Furthermore, accused persons, if convicted, can avail remedies available under the law," stated an application submitted to the apex court in response to the SC's August 3 order.

It is further submitted that the trials of these accused persons shall remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings of the apex court. The application has been submitted as a five-member judge larger bench led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan is set to resume hearings on Monday (tomorrow) to address the petitions challenging these trials.

In the last hearing conducted by a six-member bench on August 3, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan had reiterated an assurance "on instructions specifically obtained from the highest military authorities" that court martial of civilians would not commence without notifying the apex court.

The order noted that "We are confident that this commitment will be adhered to, and trials shall not commence without informing the court.

"The learned AGP, for this purpose, shall first inform the court through a statement made at the bar on a date of hearing fixed in these petitions. The court, after hearing the parties, may thereupon make any order it deems appropriate," the court had noted.

In its application, the government stated that the trials of these accused persons shall remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings of the apex court.

"It is stated that a total of 102 persons were taken into custody for their involvement in the attacks on military installations/establishments, including Generals Headquarters Rawalpindi, Corps Commander House Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, ISI Establishment Civil Lines Faisalabad, Sialkot Cantonment, ISI Establishment Hamza Camp Rawalpindi, Gujranwala Cantonment, and Bannu Cantonment, etc.

"The accused persons were taken into custody during May this year and have been in custody since then. The accused have been taken into custody under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, read with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for attacking military installations/establishments," it added.

Last week, on Tuesday, a petitioner who had challenged the trial of his son in a military court following the May 9 incident approached the Supreme Court to expedite the case's hearing.

tribune.com.pk

Military trials have already begun, SC informed | The Express Tribune

Govt submits application in response to apex court’s Aug 3 order
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk
 
May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

A five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on Monday declared the military trials of civilians arrested in the wake of violent protests in the country on May 9 to be null and void.

The court announced its verdict in the case a few hours after it was reserved. Justice Ijazul Ahsan had headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the court said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be conducted in ordinary courts. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict.

The court, in a short order released later in the day, declared Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act, which elaborates on persons subject to the Act, to be in violation of the Constitution and “of no legal effect”. The court also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) of the Act to be unconstitutional.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act states: “persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government, or having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan” can be tried under the secrets act.

Section 59(4) states : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.”

The order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, said the trials of 103 civilians and accused persons, identified by the government in a list provided to the SC, and all other persons who may be placed under trial in connection with the events of May 9 should be held in criminal courts.

“It is further declared that any action or proceedings under the Army Act in respect of the aforesaid persons or any other persons so similarly placed (including but not limited to trial by court martial) are and would be of no legal effect,” the court added.

Today’s verdict can still be appealed before a full court by the state.

A six-judge bench, which included former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, had been hearing the petitions since June. However, after Justice Bandial’s retirement, the bench was reduced to five judges.

On Sunday, at least nine accused facing trials under the Army Act moved the apex court for early conclusion of their cases by the military courts. In their separate applications, the suspects pleaded that they had complete faith and confidence in the military authorities to provide justice to them and to other accused persons.

Following the violence on May 9 which targeted civilian as well as military installations, a total of 102 persons were taken into custody for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad.

Petitioner hails verdict
Speaking to the media after the verdict was announced, Aitzaz Ahsan — who was one of the petitioners in the case — termed the verdict “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, Constitution and the justice system“.

www.dawn.com

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

In a 4-1 majority ruling, court says trial of May 9 suspects will be conducted in ordinary courts.
www.dawn.com
 
Govt to challenge SC verdict on military courts: PM Kakar

ISLAMABAD: Caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on Thursday said that the government would appeal the Supreme Court’s decision against the trial of civilians in the military courts as it had “serious” implications, ARY News reported.

In interviews with two different private television channels, he said the law was promulgated by the parliament which was also the forum to change it but no one took up the issue there.

He said without being apologetic, the government would look into the citations and reasoning which the court verdict was based on.

“After examining those reasons, we will definitely go for appeal because it (verdict) has serious implications. This is not just about one or the other group….” he commented and asked whether, any civilian would be let go based on this decision if he carries out any activity on anyone’s behest in the SPD (Strategic Planning Division).

He said the government would also look into the security situation as well as the social impacts and added that the military installations were directly linked with the national security.

Discussing the political situation, Prime Minister Kakar said the government was committed to assisting the electoral process and ensure level laying field to all the political parties.

He said the PTI was faced with the post-May 9 challenge and the party gatherings were disrupted after the police raided there to arrest the party leaders accused of the arson.

He said even during the martial laws, no one ever attacked the military installations which happened on May 9.

The prime minister said the arrest of a political worker was nothing extraordinary as the law enforcement agencies could not be barred from apprehending anyone.

Rubbishing the notion of caretaker government’s tilt towards PML-N, the prime minister called it a part of the political discourse which he did not believe as the government had the policy of fear or favour to none.

He said so far, he could not find any evidence of institutional interference in favour or against any party.

Prime Minister Kakar said the government was in a good working relationship with the Election Commission which was carrying forward the electoral process to accomplish it soon with the holding of general elections.

He said the government had an also excellent working relationship with the Establishment and no individual or political party could alone address the country’s economic and other issues.

Asked about the future of Imran Khan, he said it was subject to the judicial outcomes of the cases against him.

arynews.tv

Govt to challenge SC verdict on military courts: PM Kakar

ISLAMABAD: Caretaker Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar on Thursday said that the government would appeal the Supreme Court’s decision against the trial
arynews.tv arynews.tv
 
INTERIOR MINISTRY CHALLENGES SC VERDICT ON MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS

ISLAMABAD: The Interior Ministry has also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (SC) against the decision of a five-member bench, declaring as ‘unconstitutional’ the trial of civilians in military courts, ARY News reported on Saturday.

On Oct 23 ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) had declared that trying civilians in military courts for their alleged role in attacks on army installations during the riots that followed PTI chairman Imran Khan’s arrest were ultra vires the Constitution.

Headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the bench ruled that 103 identified persons, as well as others who were or might be similarly placed on the list in relation to the events arising from and out of May 9 and 10, be tried by criminal courts of competent jurisdiction under the ordinary and/or special law of the land.

The petitions, questioning the legitimacy of trying civilians in military courts, were filed by former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, senior lawyer Barrister Aitezaz Ahsan and others.

The interior ministry filed an initial appeal in Supreme Court, requesting the apex court to nullify its verdict on military trials of civilians. Meanwhile, a complete appeal will be filed within two weeks.

It is pertinent to mention here that the caretaker federal government had also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of a five-member bench that declared the trials of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 as unconstitutional.

arynews.tv

Interior Ministry challenges SC verdict on military trials of civilians

ISLAMABAD: The Interior Ministry has also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (SC) against the decision of a five-member bench, declaring as
arynews.tv arynews.tv
 
Military trials: Justice Masood to head SC bench
Verdict on Dec 15 had declared trial of civilians in such courts unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD:
A six-judge larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood will hear the appeals against its earlier verdict – wherein it had unanimously declared the trial of civilians allegedly involved in the May 9 riots in military courts as unconstitutional – on Dec 15.

According to the SC roster issued on Saturday, the bench will also include Justices Aminuddin Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali and Irfan Saadat Khan.

On Oct 23, a five-judge bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi, and Justice Ayesha Malik ordered that 103 accused in cases relating to the violence on May 9 and 10 should be tried under ordinary criminal laws.

Their verdict came on the petitions filed by former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan and others, questioning the legitimacy of trying civilians in military courts.

The intra-court appeals against that verdict had been filed by the caretaker federal government and the interim set-ups in the provinces of Punjab, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. The caretaker Sindh government refuted reports that it had challenged the judgment.

The defence ministry also filed an appeal before the SC against its verdict, requesting the top court to suspend the judgment’s operation during the pendency of its plea.

A contempt of court petition had also been filed before the SC against Defence Secretary Lt Gen (retd) Hamooduz Zaman Khan for allegedly paying no heed to its Oct 23 verdict.

The appeal filed by the interim federal government read that the incidents of May 9 involved “targeted attacks” on military installations and establishments in an “organised and coordinated manner”.

Read more Contempt sought against defence secretary

It added that the attacks were “neither localised nor isolated”. “The events [of May 9] indicate a premeditated and intentional attempt to undermine the country’s armed forces and inhibit [its] internal security,” the appeal stated.

The plea read that following the events of May 9, several FIRs were registered against the perpetrators. It continued that even though some of the FIRs did not “explicitly mention” the provisions of the Army Act, the top court had earlier held that it were the contents and not the particular statutory provision which determined the nature of the offences.

It was pointed out in the appeal that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act had been declared ultra vires the Constitution and had taken effect since April 21. It added that in view of the act having attained constitutional validity, the constitution of the bench was in contravention to the procedure prescribed under sections 2 and 3 of the law.

“Therefore, the judgement is liable to be set aside for having been rendered coram non judice [without jurisdiction] and thus a nullity in the eye of law,” it continued. It contended that the petitions were not maintainable before the SC in its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3).


tribune.com.pk

Military trials: Justice Masood to head SC bench | The Express Tribune

Verdict on Dec 15 had declared trial of civilians in such courts unconstitutional
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk
 
daytrader said:
Military trials: Justice Masood to head SC bench
Verdict on Dec 15 had declared trial of civilians in such courts unconstitutional

ISLAMABAD:
A six-judge larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood will hear the appeals against its earlier verdict – wherein it had unanimously declared the trial of civilians allegedly involved in the May 9 riots in military courts as unconstitutional – on Dec 15.

According to the SC roster issued on Saturday, the bench will also include Justices Aminuddin Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali and Irfan Saadat Khan.

On Oct 23, a five-judge bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi, and Justice Ayesha Malik ordered that 103 accused in cases relating to the violence on May 9 and 10 should be tried under ordinary criminal laws.

Their verdict came on the petitions filed by former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan and others, questioning the legitimacy of trying civilians in military courts.

The intra-court appeals against that verdict had been filed by the caretaker federal government and the interim set-ups in the provinces of Punjab, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. The caretaker Sindh government refuted reports that it had challenged the judgment.

The defence ministry also filed an appeal before the SC against its verdict, requesting the top court to suspend the judgment’s operation during the pendency of its plea.

A contempt of court petition had also been filed before the SC against Defence Secretary Lt Gen (retd) Hamooduz Zaman Khan for allegedly paying no heed to its Oct 23 verdict.

The appeal filed by the interim federal government read that the incidents of May 9 involved “targeted attacks” on military installations and establishments in an “organised and coordinated manner”.

Read more Contempt sought against defence secretary

It added that the attacks were “neither localised nor isolated”. “The events [of May 9] indicate a premeditated and intentional attempt to undermine the country’s armed forces and inhibit [its] internal security,” the appeal stated.

The plea read that following the events of May 9, several FIRs were registered against the perpetrators. It continued that even though some of the FIRs did not “explicitly mention” the provisions of the Army Act, the top court had earlier held that it were the contents and not the particular statutory provision which determined the nature of the offences.

It was pointed out in the appeal that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act had been declared ultra vires the Constitution and had taken effect since April 21. It added that in view of the act having attained constitutional validity, the constitution of the bench was in contravention to the procedure prescribed under sections 2 and 3 of the law.

“Therefore, the judgement is liable to be set aside for having been rendered coram non judice [without jurisdiction] and thus a nullity in the eye of law,” it continued. It contended that the petitions were not maintainable before the SC in its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3).


tribune.com.pk

Military trials: Justice Masood to head SC bench | The Express Tribune

Verdict on Dec 15 had declared trial of civilians in such courts unconstitutional
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk
Click to expand...
Justice Masood will rule its OK because he is being blackmailed by the mafia. When asked what happened to the Police when protesters approached Lahore commanders House the police officer being used for PR refused to answer. The drama created by the Establishment about 9th May was created to arrest PTI workers. No army officers died, no Police officers died. 😢
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Military trials can resume for civilians accused of rioting

The Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended its own order from October that had declared null and void the trial by military courts of civilians arrested in the wake of nationwide protests on May 9, allowing the army to resume hearing cases of 103 civilians.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court had on Oct. 23 heard about a dozen petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts and declared them unconstitutional, a relief for dozens under arrest for ransacking military installations during protests in May after the brief arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The Pakistan government and army subsequently said those who had damaged army properties would be tried in military courts, an announcement that unleashed widespread criticism from within Pakistan and rights organizations globally because of the courts’ secretive nature and existence alongside a functioning civilian legal system.

An intra-court appeal was filed against the Oct. 23 ruling by the caretaker federal government, the ministries of defense and interior, and the interim governments in the provinces of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

“103 people have been in custody for seven months, it would be appropriate to complete their trial,” Defense Ministry’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said during arguments.

The court subsequently ruled that military courts could resume trials of 103 civilians and adjourned the hearing until the third week of January. Pakistan’s Army Act of 1952 established military courts primarily to try members of the military or enemies of the state. Civilians can only be tried under a federal government order.

Civilians accused of offenses such as waging war against the armed forces or law enforcement agencies, or attacking military installations or inciting mutiny, can be tried at military courts.

Military courts operate under a separate system from the civilian legal system and are run by military officers. The judges are also military personnel and cases are tried at military installations.

Trials are closed to outsiders, and no media presence is allowed.

Anyone tried under the Army Act has the right to defend themselves and a counsel of their choice.

There is no right to appeal but individuals can challenge the question of jurisdiction in high courts and the Supreme Court.




www.arabnews.com

Military trials can resume for civilians accused of rioting

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended its own order from October that had declared null and void the trial by military courts of civilians arrested in the wake of nationwide protests on May 9, allowing the army to resume hearing cases of 103 civilians. A five-member bench of the...
www.arabnews.com www.arabnews.com
 
A Supreme Court (SC) bench hearing pleas against the verdict in the case of civilians trial in military courts was dissolved on Monday after a judge recused himself from proceedings.

On October 23, 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) announced its verdict by 4-1 in pleas against civilian trials in the military courts. The PTI founder and others moved the top court challenging the military trial of civilians named in the May 9 riots.

Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, who led the bench, said in Monday’s hearing that he would no longer be part of the proceedings.

Following the separation from the bench, the matter was forwarded to the judges’ committee for the formation of the new bench for hearing of the case.

Earlier, the federal government informed the Supreme Court that military courts initiated trials of civilians.

The government in a miscellaneous petition to the apex court informed it about the beginning of trials of civilians in response to the court’s August 03 order.

A total 102 individuals were arrested after May 09 and 10 incidents, the government said in its plea to the court.

Source: ARY

arynews.tv

SC bench hearing military courts case dissolved

A Supreme Court (SC) bench hearing pleas against the verdict in the case of civilians trial in military courts was dissolved on Monday after a judge
arynews.tv arynews.tv
 

SC grants conditional go ahead to announce reserved military court verdicts​


The Supreme Court (SC) granted military courts conditional permission on Thursday to announce reserved judgments against civilians facing trial in last year’s May 9 violence cases.

The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Mussarat Hilali, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, heard intra-court appeals against the decision of its five-member bench nullifying an earlier apex court decision declaring military trials of civilians unconstitutional.

At a hearing scheduled earlier this week, the apex court decided to amend its stay order prohibiting the announcement of military court verdicts against individuals tried for attacks on military installations since May 9 of the previous year. The bench also sought for today details regarding individuals who were expected to be acquitted of the charges.

During today's hearing, the AGP informed the court that there were around 20 individuals who could be released before Eidul Fitr and a concessionary reduction of sentence can be applied to those with lesser sentences and those who can be acquitted.

He added that those serving a one-year sentence can also be released early. The law officer said a total of 105 individuals were in the army's custody and three phases would need to be completed before their release.

Awan said the first phase would require a reserved decision, the second would entail its validation and the final phase would include the army chief signing off on their release or reduction of sentence.

Later, the AGP sought permission for military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts.

Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that even if permission is granted to announce the verdicts, it would be subject to the final decision on the appeals.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi inquired about the names of those to be released. However, the AGP replied that the names cannot be revealed until the military courts pronounce the verdicts.

Following these remarks, the apex court gave military courts the green signal to pronounce the judgments with directions to announce verdicts of only those cases where the accused could be released before Eid.

The AGP assured to grant legal exemptions to those with lesser sentences and that the permission to pronounce judgment shall be subject to the final decision on the appeals.

Furthermore, the SC also accepted the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government's plea to withdraw the appeals, filed by the caretaker government, challenging the annulment of military trials of civilians.

Besides the court sought details of those sentenced to less than three years.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the AGP to try releasing the prisoners three to four days before Eid, which the AGP assured of.

The court adjourned the hearing till the fourth week of April while directing the AGP to submit the implementation report.

Military trials

The SC, on December 23, 2023, conditionally suspended its prior decision to invalidate military trials for 103 civilians till a final judgment on the matter.

The top court stated that the ongoing military trials of the civilians, accused of involvement in attacks on army installations during the unrest following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan on May 9, 2023, would proceed. The court declared that the final decision of the trial in the military courts would be subject to the final ruling.

The majority 5-1 verdict, reached by a six-member bench, stemmed from a series of intra-court appeals (ICAs), contesting the previous unanimous ruling nullifying the military trials, filed by the caretaker federal government and the provincial governments of Balochistan, Punjab, and K-P. The Sindh government abstained from filing a plea.

Earlier, a five-judge bench of the SC in October 2023 unanimously declared the trial of civilians in military courts as null and void and ordered that the 103 accused in cases relating to the violence on May 9 and 10, 2023 be tried under the ordinary criminal laws.

The court through a 4-1 majority also declared certain clauses of the Army Act as ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect. One judge of the bench, reserved his verdict on one para, though siding with the bench on the remaining paras.

tribune.com.pk

SC grants conditional go ahead on military court verdicts | The Express Tribune

Apex court order only applies to prisoners liable for release before Eid
tribune.com.pk tribune.com.pk
 
no... only bloody civilians can get hreashed as they have no rights to live in this Banana Republic
 
Military courts case hearing begins today

The Supreme Court will take up appeals against the annulment of trials of civilians in military courts here on Wednesday (today).

A six-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin will hear the appeals against the annulment of trials of civilians in military courts today at 11:30.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Musrat Hilali and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan are also part of the bench.

In previous hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the attorney-general for the details of the accused sentenced to three years in jail by military courts.

The court ordered the release of 20 accused who were sentenced to one-year jail before Eid. The details of the accused released on Eid were submitted to the Supreme Court.



Dunya News
 
Military courts case: SC accepts pleas seeking formation of larger bench

The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday accepted pleas seeking the formation of a larger bench to hear appeals against the annulment of trials of civilians in military courts.

A six-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin heard the appeals against the annulment of trials of civilians in military courts. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Musrrat Hilali and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan are also part of the bench.

Lawyer of former CJP Jawad S. Khawaja, one of the applicants, in his arguments before the court said two judges of the SC including Justice Afridi and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah penned a note for the formation of a larger bench to hear the appeals.

Justice Aminuddin asked how the notes of judges can influence the bench hearing the case. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked observation of Justice Afridi was limited to the final verdict.

After being asked by Justice Musarrat Hilali, the lawyer responded the pleas would stand rejected if the current six-member bench gave a split verdict of 3-3.

At this juncture, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked, then a larger bench demand can come forward to the matter.

The Supreme Court after accepting the pleas for a 9-member or larger bench of the SC, forwarded the matter of military courts to the judges committee.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the attorney-general for the details of the accused sentenced to three years in jail by military courts.

The court ordered the release of 20 accused who were sentenced to one year jail before Eid. The details of the accused released on Eid were submitted to the Supreme Court.

Military trials​


In the month of May, the government decided to try the suspects accused of attacking military installations on May 9 under army laws.

Violent clashes broke out across Pakistan after the former prime minister was arrested from the premises of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on May 9.

Army installations, the Corps Commander’s house in Lahore and General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi came under attack during a protest by PTI workers.

Pleas​


Following the arrests made in connection with the violent riots that erupted across the country on May 9, the government announced its decision to hold military court trials of those found guilty of damaging and attacking military instalments — a move both the government and the army considered a low blow.

In light of this decision, PTI founder Imran Khan, former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and five civil society members, including Piler Executive Director Karamat Ali, requested the apex court to declare the military trials “unconstitutional”.

arynews.tv

Military courts case: SC accepts pleas seeking formation of larger bench

The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday accepted pleas seeking the formation of a larger bench to hear appeals against the annulment of trials of civilians in
arynews.tv arynews.tv
 
Pleas against military trials ruling become ‘hot potato’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again referred a set of intra-court appeals (ICAs) back to the three-judge committee against an Oct 23 ruling, which had deemed the trials of civilians in military courts ‘illegal’.

The committee on formation of benches is now expected to form a larger bench to hear the case, as demanded by the counsel of different parties.

The last time this matter was referred to the committee was on Jan 29, when Justice Sardar Tariq Masood — now retired but heading the six-judge bench — acceded to the request of former chief justice Jawwad S. Khawaja.

Mr Khawaja is one of the parties in the matter and sought the reconstitution of the larger bench, consisting of senior-most judges, to decide appeals in the military court case.

Subsequently, the committee formed the present bench, which consists of Justice Aminud Din Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Azhar Hasan Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali.

However, on Wednesday, to the bewilderment of some of the family members of the accused facing trial before the military courts who were sitting in Courtroom No. 4, the Supreme Court bench retired for the day with an observation that they were referring the case back to the committee.

This forced TV analyst Hafeezullah Niazi to approach the rostrum with folded hands and plead in a voice filled with emotion. He said he was not concerned whether it was a nine-judge bench or a six-member bench, his concerns were about the safety of his son, Hassan Niazi, who had allegedly gone missing from military custody and had not been heard of for several days now.

“The NAB law is considered draconian for having the provision to detain an accused for 90 days, but here our children are in physical remand for the last eight to 10 months,” Mr Niazi regretted, saying that he could not sleep in at night since he was a father. “All I want is to become a party in the case,” he pleaded. Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar asked Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan to look into the matter.

Earlier, senior counsel Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, on behalf of former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, citing his fresh plea said a larger bench having not fewer than nine judges should be formed to hear the appeals in light of voices from within the SC.

The counsel also cited notes, authored by Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Yahya Afridi, who had highlighted the need for a larger bench, adding that the potential ramifications demanded high level of judicial scrutiny. He argued that a larger bench would lend credibility to the present appeal process and to any pronouncement on whether civilians could be court-martialled by military courts.

Besides, the larger bench is also necessary in view of any possible split in equal numbers, he said, referring to a letter by incumbent Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa to then-Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, highlighting the constitution of a bench comprising junior judges to hear the same matter.

However, Justice Mazhar observed that the notes the counsel was relying on were mere observations, adding that Justice Afridi even joined the court proceedings till the end. Besides, Justice Isa’s letter had no relevance with the present case since it was not a judicial or a binding order.

AGP Awan told the court about the release of 20 people who were arrested for their involvement in the May 9 violence after undergoing the sentence awarded so that they could celebrate Eidul Fitr with their families.

At this, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui requested the court to order the federal government to place on record the orders passed by the military trial court for the perusal of the apex court, adding that 85 accused were still under detention and therefore it required urgent hearing into the matter to decide their fate.

Justice Shahid Waheed also observed such orders should be placed before the court so that it could determine whether the requirements of Article 10A, which ensures fair trial, were adhered to while deciding the matter of these individuals.

SOURCE: DAWN
 
SC judge seeks early hearing of civilians’ military trial cases

Justice Shahid Waheed, a senior judge of the Supreme Court, has highlighted the need for early hearing of the military court cases since the issues highlighted in the case involve lives and liberties of citizens.

“All these cases be set down for hearing as soon as possible because the questions involved therein concern the lives and liberties of citizens,” Justice Waheed wrote in his additional note which was part of the five-page SC order released on Saturday.

The order pertains to the April 24 hearing of a set of Intra-Court Appeals (ICA) against the Oct 23 unanimous ruling of declaring as illegal the military trials of civilians.

A six-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, ordered on April 24 that the ICAs be placed before a three-judge committee set up under Section 2 of the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 by the SC registrar for consideration of the reasons advanced by the defence counsel for the constitution of a larger bench.

The SC on Dec 13, 2023, by a majority of five to one, had suspended the operation of its Oct 23 short order that nullified the trial of 103 civilians identified in relation to their alleged involvement in the May 9 violence and had issued a direction that the military courts could commence the trial of 103 individuals, but they would not announce any final decision of awarding conviction or acquittal until the pendency of government’s instituted ICAs.

Earlier on April 8, the federal government through Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had told the SC that 20 persons who were convicted for their role in the May 9 violence were released so that they could celebrate Eidul Fitr with their family after they had either served out jail terms or granted remission by the army chief.

A list of 20 individuals had also been furnished before the SC stating in pursuance to the SC directions on March 28, the military courts were allowed to resume trial and therefore handed down sentences in cases of lesser punishments. The persons were tried for one-year rigorous imprisonment after separate trial and the period of their custody had also been mentioned after the army chief granted remissions as per legal provisions under Section 143 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.

The order said the convictions would be subject to the decisions of the appeals seized with the court.

During the hearing, Justice Waheed had observed that the orders for the release of the persons should be placed before the SC so that it could determine whether the requirements of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which ensures fair trial, was adhered to or not while deciding the matter.

Advocate Salman Akram Raja, on behalf of the respondents, had highlighted that the issues raised in ICAs were very high-profile cases and therefore their decisions should satisfy the entire nation and no one should have any doubt about propriety with regard to members of the bench.

The counsel had also contended that any decision by the six-judge bench on the ICAs would have an impact on the 1975 F.B. Ali case that dealt with the trial of civilians by a military court as well as the 2015 Rawalpindi District Bar Association case pertaining to the trial of terrorists by the military courts under the 21st Amendment of the Constitution. Therefore, it was necessary that the appeals be heard by a nine-judge bench.

SOURCE: DAWN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Major
Pakistan: 3 officers and 3 Lt. Generals dismissed from the military
Replies
22
Views
2K
Bewal Express
B
FearlessRoar
  • Poll
Is it the right decision by PTI to ask IMF to refuse payments to Pakistan due to allegations of rigging
2
Replies
151
Views
4K
guard
G
MenInG
Imran Khan: Pakistan military is 'petrified' of elections
Replies
13
Views
955
BouncerGuy
B
MenInG
New military operation to root out terrorism in Pakistan imminent
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
C
Indian army officers told to get fit or face the consequences
Replies
1
Views
192
hassan918
hassan918
Back
Top