The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court resumed its hearing on the appeals against the trial of civilians in the military courts, during which Judge Musarath Hilali has questioned the difference between the APS 2014 attack and the protests of May 9.
The seven -members bank, led by Judge Amenuddin Khan, heard arguments of Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, the lawyer who represents Judge (R) Jawad S. Khawaja, said Express News.
During the process, Hussain argued that “ordinary civilians do not fall under the law of the Army, which applies to Pakistan military personnel and civilian employees of the Armed Forces.”
Bench examines the equity of military trials
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked if the Army Law applies to attacks on the air bases. Judge Hilali added: “The APS attack was an act of terrorism, while May 9 was a protest. What differentiates civilians involved?”
Khawaja Hussain explained that the APS attack led to the 21st constitutional amendment, allowing the military trials of those responsible for terrorism.
“May 9 protesters must be tried, but not in military courts,” he argued. Judge Aminuddin Khan acknowledged that the Court has the authority to review any legislation that contradicts the Constitution.
Reference to the Public Relations Declaration between Services (ISPR) on May 9, Hussain said the military had already declared the culprit defendant before trial.
“The Declaration of May 15 of the ISPR said that there is undeniable evidence against the accused. How can a military trial be just when the institution that tries has already taken a position?” asked.
Judge Hilali commented that these arguments are related to the merits of the case, while Judge Aminuddin advised the lawyer to keep his focus on constitutional points.
Comparison with the Kulbhushan Jadhav case
The discussion also touched the Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, with Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioning how section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Army Law could affect the cases of future espionage.
“If we invalidate this provision, where would the trials for foreign spies be made?” Judge Rizvi asked. Hussain replied that such cases could be tried in the anti -terrorist courts. Judge Rizvi, smiling, replied: “Very good then.”
Judge Aminuddin found that it was contradictory that the petitioners tried to annul the provision of the Army Law and at the same time advocate special exemptions.
Concerns about military judicial procedures
Hussain argued that the trials of the General Court of Field Martial (FGCM) do not allow accused persons to choose their legal representation, declaring: “In FGCM, a lawyer is only designated with the approval of the head of the Army.”
Judge Hilali asked if the lawyer was presenting arguments for the defendant who was not in court.
Judge Commandkhail also referred to the previous decisions, noting that the FB Ali case confirmed the key provisions of the Army Law, and that the 21st Constitutional amendment was decided by a complete bank of 17 judges.
The bank later adjusted to the audience until Monday, February 3.
