SC bench continues hearing appeals against military trials

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday asked whether a soldier could only give a response during a war and not when his house was attacked, reported 24NewsHD TV channel. 

During the hearing of intra-court appeals filed against declaring the trial of civilians in military courts null and void, Aziz Bhindari, counsel for former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, said that the nation would now have to come out of this mindset that the army could do whatever it wanted. “Why was not the Corps Commander’s House (Jinnah House) in Lahore defended when it was attacked?” he questioned.   

A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the appeals.

Addressing Bhindari, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked that his client said that he would talk to only those who called the shots in the country.  

Bhindari replied that he would not comment on anything that happened outside the court.  

The judge, however, insisted that she was not discussing politics. “This is a fact that I am stating,” she added. 

Imran Khan’s lawyer argued that the status of the suspect, and not the nature of his crime, would determine whether he would be tried in a military court. “We will have to see whether the suspect is a civilian or belongs to armed forces.”

Justice Hilali again intervened and said that as per the amendments made to the Army Act, if collaboration was proved, a civilian could be court-martialled. “This implies that the nature of the crime will determine where the suspect is to be tried; whether in a military court or an ordinary court.”   

Addressing Bhindari, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that he had said that the army could not wield judicial powers. “Now you say that the army could use these powers only to the extent of its officers and personnel," he added.

The judge went on to say that if that was the case, then the army could not wield judicial powers for anybody; be it a civilian or a soldier.

Bhindari said that a military trial might also culminate in a death sentence. “A military court judge neither has any training nor any understanding of the law,” Imran’s counsel said, adding, “There is no right to appeal the sentence given by a military court. The convict can only request the army chief for clemency.” 

He went on to say that Pakistan risked getting the European Union annoyed because the latter did not support the military trial of civilians. “Our GSP Plus status is in danger.”

Justice Mandokhel remarked that basic human rights were guaranteed by the constitution and were not linked to procuring any benefit. 

Justice Hilali said fulfilling international obligations was the federal government’s, and not Supreme Court’s duty.

Reporter Amanat Gishkori