May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

[ghazi52]

,..,.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void​

Haseeb Bhatti
October 23, 2023




In a 4-1 majority ruling,

A five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on Monday declared the military trials of civilians arrested in the wake of violent protests in the country on May 9 to be null and void.

The court announced its verdict in the case a few hours after it was reserved.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan had headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the court said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be conducted in ordinary courts. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict.

The court also declared Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act, which elaborates on persons subject to the Act, to be in violation of the Constitution. The court also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) to be unconstitutional.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act states: “persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government, or having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan” can be tried under the secrets act.

Section 59(4) states : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.”

The court said that the cases should be tried in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime.

However, the verdict can still be appealed before a full court by the state.

A six-judge bench, which included former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, had been hearing the petitions since June. However, after Justice Bandial’s retirement, the bench was reduced to five judges.

On Sunday, at least nine accused facing trials under the Army Act moved the apex court for early conclusion of their cases by the military courts. In their separate applications, the suspects pleaded that they had complete faith and confidence in the military authorities to provide justice to them and to other accused persons.

Following the violence on May 9 which targeted civilian as well as military installations, a total of 102 persons were taken into custody for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad.

Petitioner hails verdict​

Speaking to the media after the verdict was announced, Aitzaz Ahsan — who was one of the petitioners in the case — termed the verdict “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, Constitution and the justice system“.

Aitzaz Ahsan speaks to the media outside the Supreme Court. — DawnNewsTV

He said that all institutions must now realise that the SC had declared that no one was above the law. “We were against military courts and we endeavoured against it. The verdict has shown that giving relief is the prerogative of the SC,” he said.

Ahsan said that reports had alleged that trials had begun even though the government had stated that this would not happen until the apex court was informed.

“The government informed the SC but after the commencement of trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials [began],” he said.

He said civilian institutions would gain confidence after the verdict and strive to improve their performance. He thanked the apex court for listening to the petitioners in the case and giving them a chance to speak.

He said that judges should be impartial and should not fear repercussions from their judgements. “In military courts, the judges are not independent. There is a colonel and he knows he can be transferred or expelled from the army,” he said.

Legal experts weigh in​

Speaking to Dawn News after the verdict was announced, Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said: “It is an established principle that as long as civilian courts are functioning, trials of civilians should not be held in military courts.

“And today, the SC has upheld this principle,” he said.

He termed today’s decision “positive” for the Constitution and fundamental rights, adding that it would strengthen civilian courts.

Responding to a question on the implementation of the verdict, Barrister Rahim said there were no two opinions on the SC’s verdict and it should be followed as enshrined in the Constitution.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Ahsan Bhoon told Geo News that the decision was “absolutely correct” and in accordance with the Constitution.

Regarding the verdict being appealed, he said that this depended on the government. He said that an appeal could be filed after the court’s decision to uphold the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.
“But my personal opinion is that this decision will be upheld even in appeal,” he said.

Today’s hearing​

At the outset of today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum and said that he would present arguments on why a constitutional amendment was not required in the case at hand.

“A trial in military courts fulfills all the requirements of criminal courts,” he said. He said that the military trials of civilians had formally commenced. He said that the verdicts issued by the military courts would also detail the reasoning.

The AGP said that a matter concerning an attack on a restricted area or building could also go to military courts.
At one point, Justice Ahsan asked, “A constitutional amendment was required to try terrorists but not for civilians? I am trying to understand your argument.”

AGP Awan said that if the accused had a “direct link” to the armed forces, then a constitutional amendment was not required. He said that the suspects would be tried under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Army Act.

He then noted that the court had raised a question about the framing of charges against the suspects. “All the requirements of a criminal case will be met in the trial under the Army Act,” he said.

He further said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be similar to how it is conducted in criminal courts. “The reasoning will be given in the verdict and the evidence will be recorded,” Awan said.

He said all the requirements for fair trial under Article 10-A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution would be fulfilled. He said that appeals against the verdict could also be filed in the high courts and subsequently the apex court.

During the hearing, Justice Ahsan asked about those who had been tried by military courts in the past. “Were the accused in 2015 civilians, foreigners or terrorists?” he asked.

The AGP replied that the suspects included both nationals and foreigners. He said that those tried in 2015 also included those who facilitated terrorists.

Justice Ayesha also asked the AGP how he would connect his arguments with Article 8(3) of the Constitution. “According to the law, a link to the armed forces in necessary [for trial in military courts],” she said.

Justice Ahsan remarked that the Constitution protected the fundamental rights of citizens.

Case background​

The hearing of the case was put off indefinitely in August with ex-CJP Bandial saying that the court did not want to see Pakistan Army pointing their guns at civilians, since they were meant to defend the country and its people.

The observations had come when Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan emphasised that soldiers were equipped with sophisticated weapons and were trained to shoot, but they had exercised restraint on May 9.

Former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Zaman Khan Vardag, Junaid Razzaq, the Supreme Court Bar Association, PTI chief Imran Khan, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, Lt-Col Inamul Rahiem, Naeemullah Qureshi etc have filed the petitions before the apex court.

Human rights groups and several politicians have criticised the trials of civilians in military courts, warning that they will undermine civilian supremacy.

After the Oct 11 upholding of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, it is now a legal requirement that all cases moved under Article 184(3) involving interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a bench consisting of not less than five SC judges.

And under Section 5 of the law, any decision by the five-judge bench could be challenged and any appeal in this regard could be filed within 30 days from the court order which will have to be fixed within a period not exceeding 14 days.

During earlier hearings, the SC had turned down the government request to constitute the full court consisting of all available judges.

Recently an application had been filed by Junaid Razzaq with a request to fix the military courts’ case as early as possible since he had been informed that the trial by military courts of civilians had commenced in violation of SC directions not to commence the trial before seeking prior permission from the apex court.

The applicant pleaded before the court that early hearing of the matter will be in the interest of justice, otherwise if the trial of his son — Azam Junaid — commenced and concluded in haste, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

In a 4-1 majority ruling, court says trial of May 9 suspects will be conducted in ordinary courts.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,

Lawyers hail ‘courageous’ SC verdict on military trial of civilians​

"Today's verdict reminds us why citizens still look to the court for justice," said Barrister Asad Rahim Khan.

Dawn.com
October 23, 2023

In a much-awaited verdict, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court declared the military trial of the 102 civilians arrested following the May 9 protests null and void. The bench was headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprised justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha A Malik.

Lawyer and former senator, Aitezaz Ahsan, who was among the petitioners in the case — termed the verdict “very important”, adding that it would also “strengthen democracy, the Constitution and the justice system”.

“The decision is so important that all institutions must now realise that the Supreme Court has pronounced that the law is above you.”

A good day for the Constitution​

Lawyer Rida Hosain called it “a historic and brave decision”.

“In the face of immense pressure, the Supreme Court has held that justice for civilians cannot and will not be handed over to the military. The section in the Pakistan Army Act 1952 which allowed for the trial of civilians in military courts has been declared as unconstitutional. Civilians in military custody will be tried in the ordinary criminal courts.

“At its core, this case was about the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to a fair trial is an absolute right,” she declared.

Speaking of military court trials, Hosain remarked: “Court-martial proceedings are grossly unfair — serving army officers with no legal training act as judges; there is no right to a reasoned judgment with decisions often simply stating ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’; trials take place in secret; and there is no meaningful right to appeal.”

“In declaring military courts for civilians unconstitutional, the court has in the true sense defended, protected, and preserved fundamental rights … Today is a good day for the country and the Constitution,” said Hosain.

Lawyer and special assistant to the Sindh chief minister, Mirza Moiz Baig commented: “The Supreme Court’s decision today is in keeping with the principle that civilians should ordinarily be tried by courts of ordinary criminal jurisdiction.

“While Section 2(d) of the Army Act, 1952, provided for certain exceptional circumstances under which a civilian may be tried by a military court, the Supreme Court, by striking down Section 2(d) of the Act, as media reports suggest, has closed the doors for the trial of civilians by military courts.”

Restoring trust in courts​

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan termed the SC’s order “courageous and potentially expansive”.

“While upholding an ageless principle — that civilians cannot be tried by military tribunals as long as civilian courts are functional — it has also struck down exceptions to the rule. “

Depending on what the detailed reasons in the court order will say, Rahim is of the opinion that the verdict “removes any ambiguity left over from earlier judgments.”

“Today’s verdict reminds us why citizens still look to the court for justice,” he said.

Lawyer and columnist Reema Omer wrote on X [formerly Twitter] that if the media reports of the verdict were true, the judgment is “truly historic”.

“Not only does it mean 9-10 May violence accused will be tried by regular courts, it would also allow other civilians convicted by military courts (for example Idrees Khattak) opportunity for relief and [will] prevent such military injustice in future,” she said.

Lawyer Hassan A Niazi termed the verdict an “excellent and brave step by the Supreme Court to show that there is still life left in our Constitution despite the setbacks of the past year.”

However, he warned that “it must now guard against attempts to subvert this decision.”

Unprecedented development​

Lawyer Usama Khawar too hailed the SC verdict as “a significant and unprecedented development in Pakistan’s constitutional and judicial history.”

According to Khawar, there are several compelling reasons that make this judgment exceptional:

• Defying Historical Patterns: The SC verdict on the May 9 rioters’ case is a groundbreaking departure from historical patterns. Previous judgments challenging military interests, such as the Asma Jillani case against Yahya Khan, the declaration of Zia’s dismissal of the Junejo government, the decision declaring Musharraf’s emergency illegal, and the order for Musharraf’s treason trial all came after the military’s power had significantly diminished. In contrast, this verdict challenges military interests at their peak. The Pakistan Army’s Formation Commanders Conference at the GHQ, confidently asserted that they possessed “irrefutable” evidence against the May 9 rioters, setting a clear agenda. Furthermore, broad political support for military trials, including backing from Parliament, political parties, and at various governmental levels, indicated widespread acceptance of the military’s decision.
• Advancing the right to fair trial: The judgment is a major step in advancing the ‘right to fair trial’, enshrined in the Constitution through the 18th Amendment. It progressively interprets Article 10A and could have profound implications for other laws that may impede the right to a fair trial.
• Revisiting Praetorian laws: The decision is a serious attempt to revisit praetorian laws that have not been examined since the inclusion of the right to fair trial in 2010. This highlights the court’s role in evolving and adapting the legal framework to align with constitutional principles.
• Restoring confidence in the judiciary: The verdict is likely to increase public confidence in the judiciary, which had suffered since May 9, due to orders being openly flouted without significant consequences.
• Boosting the Supreme Court’s credibility: The verdict enhances the credibility of the Supreme Court by demonstrating its independence. It indicates that the court is not a one-person show dominated by the chief justice, boosting internal judicial independence, and that it is not just rubber-stamping military’s preferences.
• Chief Justice’s neutrality: The verdict suggests that the Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa is not manipulating or influencing judicial decisions in favour of the establishment or the government. It also implies that the expectations that the new CJP would align with these interests are misplaced.

Constitution above all​

Lawyer Ayman Zafar recounted the precedence of civilian trials in military courts: “If we go back in history, a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court in Liaqat Hussain’s case declared military courts unconstitutional and struck them down.”

“Then In 2015, the Supreme Court validated the use of military courts, albeit, through a constitutional amendment containing a ‘sunset clause’,” she recalled, adding that “this illustrates the Supreme Court’s unanimity regarding the Constitution even back then, which in its present form does not allow for civilian trials in military courts, and any such endeavour may only be undertaken by way of a constitutional amendment.”

“While the military may act in aid of civil power, per Article 245 of the Constitution, this meaning cannot be expanded to grant them a judicial role,” Zafar explained. “The current setup of military courts lacks provisions for an appeal to the superior courts of Pakistan, restricting appeals to the Chief of Army Staff.”

“There is already a special anti-terrorism court in place to deal with cases involving terrorism. Any deviation from these courts would create a ‘parallel judicial system’, violating the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, fully aware of the fact that condoning such practices would create an atmosphere of interference in the domain of other branches, has declared military trials of civilians null and void, and against the tenets of the Constitution.”

“The victims and citizens of Pakistan undoubtedly deserve truth and justice in the wake of the May 9 riots and the destruction of public and private property. However, the pursuit of this crucial objective should revolve around transparent and equitable trials within the existing civilian court system for those responsible instead of resorting to military trials for civilians to ensure that justice is served. This approach would help maintain the integrity of the legal process while addressing the demands for accountability.”

“Today’s verdict holds significant historical and legal implications. It not only means that individuals accused in connection with the events of May 9 will now face trial in civilian courts but also paves the way for potential relief for other civilians previously convicted by military courts. Moreover, this ruling sets a precedent aimed at preventing future instances of military injustice and the undue exercise of power in such crucial matters, where the lives and well-being of civilians are at stake, and fundamental human rights stand on the brink of being compromised.”

Principle settled by court​

Lawyer Muhammad Ahmad Pansota welcomed the verdict, adding that the “basic premise upon which these entire proceedings were rotating was that a civilian can and must not be tried under the Military Act or military court.”

“I think that principle has been settled in the judgment by the Supreme Court today. Also, the amendments that were made by the government to regulate the trial of the accused persons, they also appear to have been struck down or have been declared unconstitutional.”

Pansota added that now that the cases will be decided on merits, most likely by the anti-terrorism courts, “I think there is a greater chance for those who were involved in the ordeal of May 9 to be punished in accordance with the law, and most probably people who were involved in this will be punished.”

“Thus I think it will serve in a much better way for the complainant, as far as dealing with the accused persons is concerned,” he added.

“Finally, I think this judgement will be appealed by the Government of Pakistan, now that there is a right of appeal under the new law, the Practice and Procedures Act, 2023. I think it will be appealed and that will be interesting to see. The last time military courts were taken up by a full court bench in 2015, so let’s see what CJP Isa does in this case and what larger bench he forms.”

 

[maverick1977]

,..,.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void​

Haseeb Bhatti
October 23, 2023




In a 4-1 majority ruling,

A five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on Monday declared the military trials of civilians arrested in the wake of violent protests in the country on May 9 to be null and void.

The court announced its verdict in the case a few hours after it was reserved.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan had headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the court said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be conducted in ordinary courts. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict.

The court also declared Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act, which elaborates on persons subject to the Act, to be in violation of the Constitution. The court also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) to be unconstitutional.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act states: “persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government, or having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan” can be tried under the secrets act.

Section 59(4) states : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.”

The court said that the cases should be tried in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime.

However, the verdict can still be appealed before a full court by the state.

A six-judge bench, which included former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, had been hearing the petitions since June. However, after Justice Bandial’s retirement, the bench was reduced to five judges.

On Sunday, at least nine accused facing trials under the Army Act moved the apex court for early conclusion of their cases by the military courts. In their separate applications, the suspects pleaded that they had complete faith and confidence in the military authorities to provide justice to them and to other accused persons.

Following the violence on May 9 which targeted civilian as well as military installations, a total of 102 persons were taken into custody for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad.

Petitioner hails verdict​

Speaking to the media after the verdict was announced, Aitzaz Ahsan — who was one of the petitioners in the case — termed the verdict “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, Constitution and the justice system“.

Aitzaz Ahsan speaks to the media outside the Supreme Court. — DawnNewsTV

He said that all institutions must now realise that the SC had declared that no one was above the law. “We were against military courts and we endeavoured against it. The verdict has shown that giving relief is the prerogative of the SC,” he said.

Ahsan said that reports had alleged that trials had begun even though the government had stated that this would not happen until the apex court was informed.

“The government informed the SC but after the commencement of trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials [began],” he said.

He said civilian institutions would gain confidence after the verdict and strive to improve their performance. He thanked the apex court for listening to the petitioners in the case and giving them a chance to speak.

He said that judges should be impartial and should not fear repercussions from their judgements. “In military courts, the judges are not independent. There is a colonel and he knows he can be transferred or expelled from the army,” he said.

Legal experts weigh in​

Speaking to Dawn News after the verdict was announced, Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said: “It is an established principle that as long as civilian courts are functioning, trials of civilians should not be held in military courts.

“And today, the SC has upheld this principle,” he said.

He termed today’s decision “positive” for the Constitution and fundamental rights, adding that it would strengthen civilian courts.

Responding to a question on the implementation of the verdict, Barrister Rahim said there were no two opinions on the SC’s verdict and it should be followed as enshrined in the Constitution.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Ahsan Bhoon told Geo News that the decision was “absolutely correct” and in accordance with the Constitution.

Regarding the verdict being appealed, he said that this depended on the government. He said that an appeal could be filed after the court’s decision to uphold the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.
“But my personal opinion is that this decision will be upheld even in appeal,” he said.

Today’s hearing​

At the outset of today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum and said that he would present arguments on why a constitutional amendment was not required in the case at hand.

“A trial in military courts fulfills all the requirements of criminal courts,” he said. He said that the military trials of civilians had formally commenced. He said that the verdicts issued by the military courts would also detail the reasoning.

The AGP said that a matter concerning an attack on a restricted area or building could also go to military courts.
At one point, Justice Ahsan asked, “A constitutional amendment was required to try terrorists but not for civilians? I am trying to understand your argument.”

AGP Awan said that if the accused had a “direct link” to the armed forces, then a constitutional amendment was not required. He said that the suspects would be tried under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Army Act.

He then noted that the court had raised a question about the framing of charges against the suspects. “All the requirements of a criminal case will be met in the trial under the Army Act,” he said.

He further said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be similar to how it is conducted in criminal courts. “The reasoning will be given in the verdict and the evidence will be recorded,” Awan said.

He said all the requirements for fair trial under Article 10-A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution would be fulfilled. He said that appeals against the verdict could also be filed in the high courts and subsequently the apex court.

During the hearing, Justice Ahsan asked about those who had been tried by military courts in the past. “Were the accused in 2015 civilians, foreigners or terrorists?” he asked.

The AGP replied that the suspects included both nationals and foreigners. He said that those tried in 2015 also included those who facilitated terrorists.

Justice Ayesha also asked the AGP how he would connect his arguments with Article 8(3) of the Constitution. “According to the law, a link to the armed forces in necessary [for trial in military courts],” she said.

Justice Ahsan remarked that the Constitution protected the fundamental rights of citizens.

Case background​

The hearing of the case was put off indefinitely in August with ex-CJP Bandial saying that the court did not want to see Pakistan Army pointing their guns at civilians, since they were meant to defend the country and its people.

The observations had come when Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan emphasised that soldiers were equipped with sophisticated weapons and were trained to shoot, but they had exercised restraint on May 9.

Former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Zaman Khan Vardag, Junaid Razzaq, the Supreme Court Bar Association, PTI chief Imran Khan, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, Lt-Col Inamul Rahiem, Naeemullah Qureshi etc have filed the petitions before the apex court.

Human rights groups and several politicians have criticised the trials of civilians in military courts, warning that they will undermine civilian supremacy.

After the Oct 11 upholding of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, it is now a legal requirement that all cases moved under Article 184(3) involving interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a bench consisting of not less than five SC judges.

And under Section 5 of the law, any decision by the five-judge bench could be challenged and any appeal in this regard could be filed within 30 days from the court order which will have to be fixed within a period not exceeding 14 days.

During earlier hearings, the SC had turned down the government request to constitute the full court consisting of all available judges.

Recently an application had been filed by Junaid Razzaq with a request to fix the military courts’ case as early as possible since he had been informed that the trial by military courts of civilians had commenced in violation of SC directions not to commence the trial before seeking prior permission from the apex court.

The applicant pleaded before the court that early hearing of the matter will be in the interest of justice, otherwise if the trial of his son — Azam Junaid — commenced and concluded in haste, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

In a 4-1 majority ruling, court says trial of May 9 suspects will be conducted in ordinary courts.

www.dawn.com

haha... military allowed it, because their head hancho Nawaz will do their dirty work...

 

[Jf Thunder]

great news !

Signalian must have declared a day of mourning

 

[HAIDER]

,..,.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void​

Haseeb Bhatti
October 23, 2023




In a 4-1 majority ruling,

A five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench on Monday declared the military trials of civilians arrested in the wake of violent protests in the country on May 9 to be null and void.

The court announced its verdict in the case a few hours after it was reserved.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan had headed the bench comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik.

In a 4-1 majority ruling, the court said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be conducted in ordinary courts. Justice Afridi had disagreed with the majority verdict.

The court also declared Section 2(1)(d) of the Army Act, which elaborates on persons subject to the Act, to be in violation of the Constitution. The court also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) to be unconstitutional.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act states: “persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government, or having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan” can be tried under the secrets act.

Section 59(4) states : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.”

The court said that the cases should be tried in criminal courts in accordance with the nature of the crime.

However, the verdict can still be appealed before a full court by the state.

A six-judge bench, which included former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, had been hearing the petitions since June. However, after Justice Bandial’s retirement, the bench was reduced to five judges.

On Sunday, at least nine accused facing trials under the Army Act moved the apex court for early conclusion of their cases by the military courts. In their separate applications, the suspects pleaded that they had complete faith and confidence in the military authorities to provide justice to them and to other accused persons.

Following the violence on May 9 which targeted civilian as well as military installations, a total of 102 persons were taken into custody for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, corps commander’s residence in Lahore, PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad.

Petitioner hails verdict​

Speaking to the media after the verdict was announced, Aitzaz Ahsan — who was one of the petitioners in the case — termed the verdict “very important”, adding that it would also strengthen democracy, Constitution and the justice system“.

Aitzaz Ahsan speaks to the media outside the Supreme Court. — DawnNewsTV

He said that all institutions must now realise that the SC had declared that no one was above the law. “We were against military courts and we endeavoured against it. The verdict has shown that giving relief is the prerogative of the SC,” he said.

Ahsan said that reports had alleged that trials had begun even though the government had stated that this would not happen until the apex court was informed.

“The government informed the SC but after the commencement of trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials [began],” he said.

He said civilian institutions would gain confidence after the verdict and strive to improve their performance. He thanked the apex court for listening to the petitioners in the case and giving them a chance to speak.

He said that judges should be impartial and should not fear repercussions from their judgements. “In military courts, the judges are not independent. There is a colonel and he knows he can be transferred or expelled from the army,” he said.

Legal experts weigh in​

Speaking to Dawn News after the verdict was announced, Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said: “It is an established principle that as long as civilian courts are functioning, trials of civilians should not be held in military courts.

“And today, the SC has upheld this principle,” he said.

He termed today’s decision “positive” for the Constitution and fundamental rights, adding that it would strengthen civilian courts.

Responding to a question on the implementation of the verdict, Barrister Rahim said there were no two opinions on the SC’s verdict and it should be followed as enshrined in the Constitution.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Ahsan Bhoon told Geo News that the decision was “absolutely correct” and in accordance with the Constitution.

Regarding the verdict being appealed, he said that this depended on the government. He said that an appeal could be filed after the court’s decision to uphold the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act.
“But my personal opinion is that this decision will be upheld even in appeal,” he said.

Today’s hearing​

At the outset of today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum and said that he would present arguments on why a constitutional amendment was not required in the case at hand.

“A trial in military courts fulfills all the requirements of criminal courts,” he said. He said that the military trials of civilians had formally commenced. He said that the verdicts issued by the military courts would also detail the reasoning.

The AGP said that a matter concerning an attack on a restricted area or building could also go to military courts.
At one point, Justice Ahsan asked, “A constitutional amendment was required to try terrorists but not for civilians? I am trying to understand your argument.”

AGP Awan said that if the accused had a “direct link” to the armed forces, then a constitutional amendment was not required. He said that the suspects would be tried under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Army Act.

He then noted that the court had raised a question about the framing of charges against the suspects. “All the requirements of a criminal case will be met in the trial under the Army Act,” he said.

He further said that the trial of May 9 suspects would be similar to how it is conducted in criminal courts. “The reasoning will be given in the verdict and the evidence will be recorded,” Awan said.

He said all the requirements for fair trial under Article 10-A (right to fair trial) of the Constitution would be fulfilled. He said that appeals against the verdict could also be filed in the high courts and subsequently the apex court.

During the hearing, Justice Ahsan asked about those who had been tried by military courts in the past. “Were the accused in 2015 civilians, foreigners or terrorists?” he asked.

The AGP replied that the suspects included both nationals and foreigners. He said that those tried in 2015 also included those who facilitated terrorists.

Justice Ayesha also asked the AGP how he would connect his arguments with Article 8(3) of the Constitution. “According to the law, a link to the armed forces in necessary [for trial in military courts],” she said.

Justice Ahsan remarked that the Constitution protected the fundamental rights of citizens.

Case background​

The hearing of the case was put off indefinitely in August with ex-CJP Bandial saying that the court did not want to see Pakistan Army pointing their guns at civilians, since they were meant to defend the country and its people.

The observations had come when Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan emphasised that soldiers were equipped with sophisticated weapons and were trained to shoot, but they had exercised restraint on May 9.

Former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Zaman Khan Vardag, Junaid Razzaq, the Supreme Court Bar Association, PTI chief Imran Khan, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, Lt-Col Inamul Rahiem, Naeemullah Qureshi etc have filed the petitions before the apex court.

Human rights groups and several politicians have criticised the trials of civilians in military courts, warning that they will undermine civilian supremacy.

After the Oct 11 upholding of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, it is now a legal requirement that all cases moved under Article 184(3) involving interpretation of the Constitution should be heard by a bench consisting of not less than five SC judges.

And under Section 5 of the law, any decision by the five-judge bench could be challenged and any appeal in this regard could be filed within 30 days from the court order which will have to be fixed within a period not exceeding 14 days.

During earlier hearings, the SC had turned down the government request to constitute the full court consisting of all available judges.

Recently an application had been filed by Junaid Razzaq with a request to fix the military courts’ case as early as possible since he had been informed that the trial by military courts of civilians had commenced in violation of SC directions not to commence the trial before seeking prior permission from the apex court.

The applicant pleaded before the court that early hearing of the matter will be in the interest of justice, otherwise if the trial of his son — Azam Junaid — commenced and concluded in haste, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

May 9 riots: SC declares military trials of civilians null and void

In a 4-1 majority ruling, court says trial of May 9 suspects will be conducted in ordinary courts.

www.dawn.com

Where is SOB .. Faiz Isa ...where he is hiding ...why not in this panel ... scared his money laundering cases will be opened soon ...

 

[nomi007]

Supreme Court slaps the army chief under his ears.
I hope they will hear the echo of this slap for many years.
Uncle whisky

 

[Olympus81]

Dont get your hopes high.

Army Generals will sort out the judges soon.

 

[Jango]

Looks like these 5 Justices need to be kidnapped and then produced in a press conference.

Who do you think should interview them? Muneeb Farooq? The self professed law expert? Or maybe Ghareeda Farooqi?

 

[Borderlands]

This could make things even worse for PTI activists. Army will simply "disappear" peoples instead of arresting them. They been doing it for a long time in Balochistan. If they don't have enough evidence to get conviction in a court, they will disappear peoples without registering an arrest.

 

[Sugarcane]

To early to give opinion. If appeal is filed against decision then these judges will not be part of bench listening the appeal. So, company will form bench of own choice via her poodle Qazi Easy Paisa.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,