Islamabad: Hearing of appeals related to civilian trials in military courts.
Constitutional Court judge Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, while hearing a case related to trials of civilians in military courts, has questioned how the distinction was made as to which case will go to military courts and which case will go to anti-terrorism courts.
A constitution bench headed by Justice Amin Uddin heard the intra-court appeal against the trial verdict of civilians in military courts.
During the hearing, Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris read out the decision of the 5-member bench regarding the annulment of the military trial.
Khawaja Haris has said, according to the judgement all the rights are basic which are defined.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that there must be an emergency to suspend fundamental rights, the matter is different whether there can be a trial or not.
Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris said, according to Article 8 (3) where it is mentioned, there was a wrong interpretation of Article 233 while declaring the military trial of citizens invalid, the 5-member larger bench took the view that fundamental rights were suspended. , fundamental rights were suspended in case of Emergency.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the rights were suspended during Pervez Musharraf’s era by not giving the right to appeal.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said, Article 233 had nothing to do with the military courts case, adding that Article 233 was invoked to justify the interpretation of Article 8 (5).
Justice Amin Uddin said, fundamental rights can be defended in courts, only enforcement is suspended.
Justice Musrat Hilali said, in the present case, when the accused were taken into military custody, the fundamental rights were not suspended nor was the state of emergency enforced.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said, the Supreme Court judgment said, stopping the implementation is tantamount to suspending fundamental rights.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the Supreme Court declared the clause 2D of the Army Act null and void in the central decision, what will be the overall effect of the nullification of this clause, can anti-national spies like Kulbhushan now walk in military courts? To this, Khawaja Haris replied that the case of anti-national spy cannot be tried in military courts according to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said, why are we not strengthening our prosecution system? Justice Azhar Rizvi remarked that there was an attack on GHQ earlier in which there were testimonies, a Korean plane was destroyed in a terrorist operation in Karachi, testimonies were taken, an army chief was on a foreign visit in the plane conspiracy case. Attempts were made to hijack their ship, attacks on military installations, martyrdoms took place in these incidents, where were all these cases conducted?
Justice Musrat Hilali questioned, which case will go on in the military courts and which one will not go on, how is this distinction made? Justice Naeem Afghan said, the case against 103 accused in the May 9 incidents was tried in the military courts and the rest of the cases are going on in the anti-terrorism courts. How was this distinction made? Which case will go to military courts, which case will go to counter-terrorism courts? Where is the detailed decision of the anti-terrorism courts to hand over the accused to the custody of the army?
Justice Mandukhel questioned, how to decide that where the case will go on any crime? Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said, how and on what principles is the distinction made on where the cases are to be conducted?
Justice Mandukhel said, the President has the authority to suspend the fundamental rights, the Executive executes the order of the President, all these powers belong to the Executive, so how can anyone else look into such matters? The accused is being acquitted by the anti-terrorism court, he is being punished by the military court, is there any special evidence provided in the military courts? Why are the anti-terrorist courts not strengthened? Courts have to decide by looking at the evidence.
Justice Hasan Azhar asked whether the May 9 incident is a more serious crime than terrorism. the trial is being court-martialed? If there are good investigating officers and prosecutors, there will be punishments from the courts.
Later, the court adjourned till tomorrow the hearing on intra-court appeals against the trials of civilians in military courts.
