The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday reserved the verdict on appeals in the trial of civilians by military courts, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
The bench will announce the verdict this week.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the petitions filed against declaring the trials of civilians in military courts null and void.
Earlier, during the hearing, the attorney-general for Pakistan (AGP) said that the military installations were attacked and vandalized on May 9 according to a well-thought-out plan. “Such attacks were not witnessed even when a prime minister was hanged,” he said, and added, “As many as 39 installations were attacked on May 9; from 3:00 PM in the afternoon till evening.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhel reminded him that the issue under review was not whether the crime had been committed or not. “You tell us about the convicts’ right to appeal,” the judge said.
The AGP told the court that departmental action was taken against three senior Pakistan Army officers for showing negligence when the Jinnah House came under attack from the PTI workers and supporters. “They, a lieutenant general, a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel, were forced to retire without pensions and perks and privileges.”
Justice Mandokhel asked whether criminal proceedings were initiated against these army officers.
The AGP replied that criminal proceedings were initiated when an army officer or a jawan has committed any crime. “Departmental action was taken against these officers for not doing enough to prevent the attack on the Jinnah House.”
Justice Mandokhel, however, said that it was evident from the Army Act that criminal proceedings would be initiated along with departmental action.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had been hanged, the people protesting the hanging turned themselves in to the police and even committed suicides, but never did they set buildings alight.
Justice Musarrat Hilali asked whether the protestors had jumped over the Jinnah House gate or whether somebody from inside had opened it. “If the latter is the case, then there is a case of connivance.”
Justice Mandokhel remarked that it remained to be seen whether the PTI workers on May 9 only wanted to protest or they had assembled outside the Jinnah House with the intention to attack. “There is a possibility that initially their intention was to register protest, but later things went out of their control.”
The attorney-general insisted that what had happened on May 9 was nothing but a crime.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on the occasion, said, “We are not here to establish whether it was a crime or not. If we do so, this will have an impact on the appeals filed by the convicts.”
The judge further said that if the court delved into the details of what happened on that day, then lots of questions would arise. “Then it will be difficult for you to respond to all these questions.”
He asked whether the then Corps Commander Lahore had appeared in the trial court as a witness.
The AGP replied that the court would come to know about it when appeals would be filed in the Jinnah House attack case.
Justice Afghan said that was the reason he had asked him not to go into details, because he would not have answers to that.
Justice Hilali questioned, “Why was not the Army Act amended? What is special in the Official Secrets Act that an amendment that could have easily been made was not made?
The attorney-general informed the court that convicts in the May 9 cases had filed appeals. “So far, 86 convicts have filed appeals.”
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori