Justice Mandokhail says preventing terrorism and gathering evidence are administration’s tasks
Special Correspondent
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi has stressed the need for reforms not only in the anti-terrorism court but also in all other courts for the improvement of the judiciary.
The remark came during the hearing of the intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts, by a seven-member constitutional bench of the apex court on Friday.
The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan — comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shahid Bilal — questioned the distinction between civilians involved in the May 9 riots and those responsible for the December 16 attacks.
Khawaja Ahmad Hussain — the counsel for former chief justice Jawad S Khawaja — who opposed the military trials, presented arguments in today’s hearing.
He said that civilians do not fall under military trials. The counsel also clarified that he is not entirely challenging the Army Act but only a specific aspect of it. He pointed out that Justice Muneeb Akhtar had also referred to the same argument in his verdict.
At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that there was a dispute over different possibilities in the FB Ali case.
“Nowadays, there is also a viewpoint that if a political party engages in such actions, what should be done,” he remarked, recalling his observation from yesterday’s hearing where he had mentioned the Mehran Base attack and a few other incidents.
Justice Hilali said that the court was convinced during the previous hearing that military trials ensure a fair trial. This was when she asked about the difference between the individuals involved in the May 9 riots and the attack on Army Public School, Peshawar, on December 16, 2014.
In response, Hussain stated that the individuals involved in the APS attack were linked to acts of terrorism. He explained that an amendment had to be made to facilitate their trials, after which the accused were prosecuted.
The lawyer further said that the Pakistan Army Act applies to civilian employees of the armed forces.
At this point, Justice Rizvi questioned, “Does the Army Act apply to those who attack airbases?”
Responding to the query, Hussain referred to the Inter-Services Public Relations’ (ISPR) statement regarding the May 9 incidents. He noted that the military’s media wing had issued a statement on May 15, 2023, about the events of May 9. He clarified that he had no objection to the statement but highlighted that it expressed grief and sorrow within the institution over the incident. The statement also mentioned the presence of undeniable evidence regarding the May 9 events.
“How can a fair trial be ensured in a military court after such a statement?” he asked.
The lawyer emphasised that their case is not beyond the Constitution. He said that the May 9 suspects should be prosecuted, but not in military courts, arguing that an “affected party cannot ensure a fair trial.”
