Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel of the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday asked whether a suspect was also considered a ‘favourite child’ in military courts as was usually the case in ordinary courts, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
During the hearing of intra-court appeals filed against declaring the trial of civilians in military courts null and void, Khawaja Haris, the counsel for the Ministry of Defence, informed that the suspect was provided complete protection under the rules of the Army Act.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the appeals.
Justice Mandokhel asked Khawaja Haris on what basis a trial in a military court could be challenged.
Haris replied that the trial could be challenged if the court was not relevant or there was a bad intention on the part of the judge.
Haris went on to say that the law was explicit on the difference between a trial and a fair trial.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked whether a suspect, undergoing a military trial, who could not hire a lawyer due to his meager financial resources was provided a lawyer at the government’s expense.
Haris replied, “Yes my lord! The suspect is provided a lawyer.”
The lawyer argued that the bench could not review each and every case that was heard by a military court. “The bench is not hearing the case covered by clause III of Article 184 of the constitution.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that he, as a chief justice of the Balochistan High Court (BHC), had heard appeals against the verdicts given by military courts. “When a high court hears such appeals, the GHQ provides a complete record of such cases,” the judge added.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked whether a military court judge had the experience of hearing cases or any novice was made to sit in the courtroom.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that it took 20 years for a judge to become a sessions judge.
Haris informed that experience was not necessary for a military court judge. “But he should have complete knowledge of the Army Act,” he said, adding, “It is not necessary that a judge has undergone training. The only thing he has to see is whether the suspect is guilty or not on the basis of the evidence presented before him.”
Justice Hilali said that the question was, what would be the impact of the trial of civilians in military courts on their minds? “We are living in a society in which there are no checks.”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether a convict got the benefit when he appealed a military court’s decision on the basis of any error left in it.
Haris informed that the convict had the right to appeal.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that there was a sanctity of the life of each and every person.
Justice Rizvi asked whether the appellant was the given the right to defend himself.
Justice Mandokhel said what a pity that these days a handful of people had the audacity to declared the decision given by an eight-member bench as flawed.
Later Haris presented in the court the record of military trial of one of the convicts in the May 9 case. “All legal requirements were met in the case,” the counsel claimed.
He said it was for the court to now see whether the trial in this particular case was ‘fair’ or not.
Before the trial commenced, Haris added, the suspect was asked whether he had any objection to Lt Colonel Ammar Ahmad as a military court judge. “But the suspect replied he had no objections.”
Some of the judges, on the occasion, read the files containing the record and then returned them, while Justice Mazhar and Justice Hilali kept the files with them.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that this record was to be examined by the court hearing the suspect’s appeal. “It is not appropriate for us to go through it.
The constitutional bench later adjourned the hearing of the case until tomorrow.
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori