ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has issued dissenting notes by Justices Jamal Mandukhel and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan in the verdict of a civilian trial case in military courts.
The dissenting notes state that claiming that military courts are established to face terrorism cases worldwide is not correct. It is true that the conviction rate in ordinary criminal courts is low, but that does not mean these courts lack the capacity or desire to deliver justice. The notes further mention that the Supreme Court is continuously reviewing the judgments of lower courts. It has observed that most of the acquittal decisions are based on baseless political cases. Such decisions result from unprofessional investigation and weak prosecution.
The dissenting notes also highlight that appeals have been filed by the federal, Punjab, and Balochistan governments. It appears, unfortunately, that these governments lack confidence in criminal courts. Regrettably, they have lost trust in the criminal justice system.The notes further state that these governments have transferred the burden of resolving non-serious, politically motivated cases onto military courts, which is incomprehensible. The officers presiding over military courts are military personnel experienced in military matters.
The dissenting notes point out that these officers lack judicial experience and are not trained to handle civil cases. Military courts cannot be equated with the regular judicial system. Ordinary courts are presided over by officials with judicial experience and independence.Finally, the notes mention that the federal and provincial governments rely on military courts rather than understanding terrorism cases. Expecting ordinary criminal courts to convict without evidence violates principles of fair trial. When the prosecution lacks evidence or material, how can a military court deliver a conviction?
