The Supreme Court of Pakistan has resumed the hearings in a high profile case that has challenged the legality of judging civilians in military courts, and the judges raise serious concerns about due process and judicial independence.
A constitutional bank of seven members, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, listened to requests against the military trials of civilians arrested after violent protests.
Judges Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Musarrat Hilali, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal were also part of the bank.
Judge Commandkhail questioned how an institution that has acted as a plaintiff can also preside over the trial. “How can an institution that has also been listening to the case?” He commented. “Has the Federation not trusted its own Civil Judiciary?”
The Court focused on whether the courts in the military courts have received the constitutional right to appeal and just trial. “We have been asking about the right to appeal because it is a fundamental right,” Judge Commandkhail said.
Judge Hilali pointed out how criticism intensifies when civil courts delay the procedures. “If a judge goes on a license, it becomes a national problem that the judgments are delayed,” he said, highlighting a double perceived standard.
Attorney General Usman Awan appeared before the Bank and defended the Military Court process. He said that the martial court system follows a defined legal structure, and any death sentence is not implemented until the appeals have been exhausted. “The entire procedure is already registered with the court,” he said.
Judge Mazhar said there should be no problem by allowing fair judgments. “If we provide the right to fair proof, what is the problem?” asked.
The bank also reviewed the options previously discussed by a complete court after the 18th constitutional amendment.
Judge Commandkhail asked the Attorney General to explain which of those three options that the Government has followed.
The attorney general said he will respond after the petitioner Khawaja Haris concludes his arguments. The court postponed the hearing until Thursday.
