Daily Times

The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned hearing of petitions challenging the trial of accused involved in the May 9 riots in army courts for an indefinite time.

A six-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik heard the cases.

During the course of proceedings, CJP Bandial questioned that how the May 9 incidents had affected the discipline of army, and whether “creating a hindrance in the work of an army officer and breaking of discipline” were mentioned in the law. The AGP replied that it was mentioned in the act.

Justice Yahaya Afridi asked whether the accused, civilians or army personnel who come under the purview of the Army Act, would not be entitled to basic human rights.

The CJP remarked that the independence of judiciary was the base of justice in the country. The prosecution would decide the case under the Army Act and also hear the appeal, he added.

The right of appeal at an independent forum against the decision of a military court was a guarantee of fundamental rights, the chief justice observed. CJP Bandial said as per the Attorney General for Pakistan, the trials of the accused in military courts had not yet started and instructed the AGP to inform the bench before initiating of such trials. The trial would be conducted in open courts and evidences would be recorded and , he added. The chief justice directed that the arrested accused should not suffer from physical or mental problems. The bench would summon the responsible if its orders were violated even after the tenure of the government ended, he added.

The court could appoint any retired judge as a focal person to meet 102 arrested persons, he said. The court wanted that they should be given basic facilities and have permission to meet their families, the CJP added. AGP Mansoor Usman Awan said what happened on May 9, had never happened in the country’s history and that could not be allowed in future again. All the accused could be clearly seen in footage of the incidents, he added. He said that the sections regarding the trial of civilian accused by military courts were included in the Army Act through amendments in 2015. As per the section-II, the civilian accused come in jurisdiction of army act if they created an hindrance in defence measures or tried to damage the discipline of the force.

He said the Parliament had the authority for the legislation and that before amendments the Army Act could be applied only on military men. He said the procedure for trying an accused in military courts was in front of the bench. Firstly a report regarding the certain incident used to be submitted to the military courts and then a commanding officer conducted a complete investigation into it in a court of inquiry. After it the civilian accused could be arrested under sections 73 and 76 of the Army Act, he said, adding the accused was also given an opportunity for cross examination during recording of the evidence. After cross examination, the charges used to be framed against them under section 19 and a three member panel was set up for the trial.

The AGP said the accused were used to be given an opportunity to hire lawyers for their defence during the trial. The accused could hire any officer of the legal branch of army or a private lawyer, he added. The accused was sentenced if he confessed the crime or faced the trial if he denied charges against him, he added. The attorney general said the accused could file an appeal to the courts of appeal against his conviction, and could also consult a legal advisor during the trial. The accused was given a complete opportunity to defend the allegations against him, he said.

The AGP said apparently none of the 102 accused would be given death penalty or 14-year jail term as such punishment was used to be given to those involved in a foreign conspiracy. To a question, he said that prohibited areas were those which were mentioned in the Official Secrets Act.The attorney general assured the bench that the civilian accused would be given the right to hire private lawyers during their trial in military courts. He said the arrested people had been kept in jails and were being provided all basic facilities.

The AGP prayed the court to grant one month time to clarify regarding the right of appeal to the accused after conviction. There was need to view the matter carefully so that it would not affect the country’s position at international level. The court said that it would fix next date of hearing after consultation with all members. It also rejected the request of the petitioners’ lawyers for issuance of a stay order against trial, observing that so far no trial had started. The case was subsequently adjourned.