Daily Times

The Supreme Court (SC) has halted the execution of four death row inmates sentenced by military courts for their involvement in different terrorist activities. Two of these men, Taj Muhammad and Ali Rehman, had been convicted for facilitating the gruesome attack on the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar that left more than 150 people, mostly schoolchildren, dead. Another, Qari Zubair, was found guilty of being involved in a bomb attack on a mosque in Nowshera, and the fourth was convicted for firing on a check post in Bajaur Agency that left eight dead. The families of the convicts challenged the military courts’ verdicts through Advocate Latif Afridi, who claimed before the two-member bench of the SC that during the proceedings of these cases, Article 10-A of the Constitution, which ensures fair trial, had been ignored. Sentences had been awarded without any prior notice, leaving the accused no time to prepare a defence. The convicts’ counsels stated that they had earlier challenged the decision in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) but the appeals were rejected on the ground that the cases did not fall within the PHC’s jurisdiction. In response to the counsel’s plea to stay execution till the final disposal of the case, the SC granted a stay of execution and adjourned the case till February 16, while issuing notice to the Attorney General.

The SC has wisely used its power of judicial review. After the APS incident the decision to set up military courts was justified as necessary to expedite counter-terrorism cases. This came with widespread apprehensions that a summary military court procedure would lead to miscarriage of justice. This is no longer a mere suspicion now, since military courts are being demonstrated as failing to answer to standards of fair trial and due process, considering that during such proceedings, no basis of conviction is provided, no evidence to support it is given, there is no adequate legal representation provided to the alleged criminal, and the process is entirely non-transparent, meaning that the detailed judgement that may shed light on the otherwise lacking information is also unavailable. The judgements in question were passed in similar circumstances and endorsed by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). When the 21st Constitutional Amendment, under which the military courts were set up, was challenged, the SC did not strike down the Amendment to avoid a conflict with parliament, but it did enunciate that the judiciary would retain the right of judicial review of all sentences passed by military courts. This has now proved to be the last resort for those convicted by military courts. The apex court’s review of the sentences of military courts has turned out to be a blessing for those convicted without due process. *