- The Constitutional Bank listens to the military trial.
- General Ziaul Haq made a military trial of FB Ali: lawyer Zuberi.
- Judge Commandkhail says that the military’s work is to defend the country.
Islamabad: The judge of the Supreme Court, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, has observed that neither the Armed Forces nor the Military Court are part of the Judiciary, nor is it written in any judicial verdict that the Military Court is part of the Judiciary.
His comments are produced as a constitutional bank of seven members of the Apex court, headed by Judge Amin-Din Khan, on Wednesday he heard the pleasure of the federal government and the Ministry of Defense against the Military Judgment of civilians as unconstitutional.
The other members of the bank were Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Judge Mazhar, Judge Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Musarrat Hilali, Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Judge Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Presenting his arguments on behalf of the former carriers of the Bar Association of the Supreme Court, the lawyer Abid Zuberi said that FB Ali was a hero of the war of 1965, but was accused of misuse of his position after retirement. “How could a person withdrawal use their office?” He wondered.
He continued to say that General Ziaul Haq made a military trial of FB Ali, but then he freed him in 1978.
To this, Judge Commandkhail said that the Zia generation did what FB Ali wanted to do.
Judge Mazhar said that two objections were raised on the military courts: military trials are not impartial, and those who carry out military judgments lack legal experience.
On the issue of whether military courts are part of the Judiciary, lawyer Zuberi said that the Army Courts are part of the Executive.
“What have to do with the Executive,” Judge Mazhar questioned. The lawyer Zuberi replied that the army was supposed to fight at the borders.
Judge Commandkhail said that the military’s work is to defend the country.
Judge Mazhar: “Do you accept military courts? If so, the results will be very different. Judge Muneeb Akhtar did not write military courts [in the verdict] as judicial. There is no clarity about the military courts in any verdict of the Court. “
Judge Commandkhail said that the Military Court was not mentioned in section 2 (D). However, it was written in the section that the trial of a crime will take place, but a forum is not explicitly mentioned. He said, he added that the anti -terrorist courts pronounce sentences if evidence against the accused is available.
Judge Mazhar told the lawyer to first accept that the military courts are part of the Judiciary before demanding them to separate them from the Judiciary. “The Armed Forces are not part of the Judiciary; It is not written in any judicial decision that the Military Court is a Judiciary, ”added the judge.
Judge Commandkhel said that the word martial court has been used in the law but not in military courts.
The lawyer Zuberi argued that only civilians who are part of the army can be tried in military courts.
In the presence of article 10 and article 4, a martial court of civilians is not possible. Under section 2D, subclusula 3 of article 8 does not apply to the accused, he added.
After listening to the arguments, the audience of the case was postponed until tomorrow (Thursday).
