ISLAMABAD: The government, during the fourth hearing of a set of petitions challenging the trial of civilian protestors in military courts, said on Tuesday that army tribunals were not conducting trials at the present moment.
During the previous day’s hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial had requested reassurance from Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan that no such trials would take place while the case was being heard in court.
The AGP affirmed that there were no ongoing trials of civilians.
However, later in the evening, the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, said that proceedings against the 102 civilians handed over for trial were already underway.
A six-member larger bench, led by Justice Bandial and composed of Justice Ijaz ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, is hearing the petitions challenging the government’s decision to try civilians in military courts.
The government had announced that individuals involved in the violence that erupted on May 9, resulting in the vandalism of various government buildings and army installations, would face trials under army laws.
The petitions, filed separately by former prime minister Imran Khan, former chief justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and five civil society members, including Piler Executive Director Karamat Ali, urged the apex court to declare military trials unconstitutional.
During the previous hearings, Khawaja Ahmed Hussain, the lawyer representing Khawaja, Latif Khosa, counsel for petitioner Aitzaz Ahsan, and civil society lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja presented their arguments.
Subsequently, the counsel for Khan took the podium and highlighted conflicting statements from the AGP and Chaudhry.
Referring to Monday’s press conference by Chaudhry, the counsel pointed out that the trial of 102 individuals had been mentioned. He emphasized the conflicting statements between the AGP and the ISPR head.
In response, the AGP reaffirmed his earlier statement, asserting: “I stand by my statement even today.” He further suggested that the representatives from the Ministry of Defence, present in the court, could provide a better explanation of the situation.
Justice Ayesha remarked: “We are currently examining existing judicial precedents,” indicating that the court was actively considering relevant legal precedents.
Additionally, Justice Bandial expressed confidence in the AGP’s statement, redirecting the court’s focus to the ongoing proceedings.
During the hearing, Uzair Bhandari, the lawyer representing Khan, argued that the approval of civilian trials in military courts by Parliament required a constitutional amendment. He cited the 21st Amendment, which established that the trial of civilians necessitated a constitutional amendment.
Justice Ayesha questioned whether a civilian trial in military courts could be held for internal matters, to which Justice Afridi said that such matters related to the country’s defense had been addressed in the 21st Amendment.
Justice Afridi observed that the ISPR press conference held the day before had provided clarity on the situation.
Justice Ahsan mentioned that the court could not ignore previous examples of civilians being tried in military courts, acknowledging that each case had unique circumstances and reasons.
Bhandari argued that any military trial of a civilian should only occur through a constitutional amendment.
Justice Akhtar, however, stated that a military trial could take place during an emergency or wartime, emphasizing that civilian trials in military courts could not be conducted when fundamental rights were not suspended.
The lawyer representing PTI’s chief replied that the 21st Amendment specified that military trials could only occur during a war-like situation.
Bhandari highlighted the evolution of the Constitution, laws, and fundamental rights, mentioning Article 10-A (right to a fair trial) and the importance of Article 175(3) regarding the separation of the judiciary from the executive. He argued that although these articles were separate, they were interconnected.
Bhandari contended that fundamental rights required a judge appointed under Article 175(3) to conduct the trial. He expressed concerns about the negative perception and unease in the country caused by the military trial of civilians.
He further questioned the invocation of the Official Secrets Act, stating that if the army was involved in various areas, including sports, would the Army Act be applied in those instances.
The CJP emphasized the significance of maintaining high morale within the army and the potential impact on national security if
