ISLAMABAD: Justice Mussarat Hilali said the European Union and international organisations can direct the federal government, but not the Supreme Court, as it decides the cases as per our own laws and the constitution.
A seven-member Supreme Court (SC) Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Tuesday, heard intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the apex court’s decision on trial of civilians by military courts.
Justice Hilali asked Uzair Bhandari, who appeared on behalf of founding chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, not to try to scare the Court that if international conventions are not complied with then GSP+ status could be withdrawn.
She said, “The Court decides the cases in accordance with our own laws and constitution.”
EU strongly reacts to conviction of civilians by military court
Uzair asked the Court to also keep in mind the international obligations while deciding the case in accordance with the domestic law and the constitution. He submitted Pakistan’s financial position is precarious, and for funds the government approaches IMF and other donor organisations.
He informed that Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) without any reservations, and the Court had invoked the ICCPR for implementing the fundamental rights, and followed it for fair trial, even when Article 10A was not part of the constitution.
He argued that Pakistan was awarded GSP+ status on 1st January 2014 after the country had ratified 27 international conventions and committed to implementing them. He stated if the ICCPR is not implemented then GSP+ status’ fate hangs in the balance.
According to media reports, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights during his recent visit to Pakistan had urged the government not to use military courts to pursue cases against citizens, and opposed recent moves to restrict freedom of expression. The GSP+ monitoring mission is due in June 2025.
Earlier, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi said that in the cases of Mehram Ali and Rawalpindi District Bar Association (RDBA) there was an element of terrorism, while the Sheikh Liaquat Hussain case related to some specific incidents in Karachi. However, in the instant matter, the military installations were attacked in GHQ Rawalpindi, Mianwali, Sargodha, and Kamra.
He questioned when an army colonel is responsible for the security of the places and the officers, then whether a police officer can investigate him that why the security was breached, adding here comes military for trial of those involved in attacking the installations. He said some protesters entered military places, and ransacked properties; the media had shown everything on TV channels, and the whole world had seen it.
Uzair then put a question why only 103 persons involved in 9th May riots were tried by the military courts.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned how it is possible that for the same offences some accused were tried by the military courts, while others in the Anti-Terrorism Courts.
Justice Amin remarked there could be a possibility that some persons who were charged were not present at those locations.
Uzair contended that 21st Amendment was promulgated to provide protection to the military courts, adding besides constitutional amendment it was said that there existed exceptional situation.
Justice Mandokhail asked him, “Are you suggesting that the legislature is competent to amend the laws, but that has to be done within the constitutional parameters.”
Justice Rizvi questioned if someone attacks your workplace or house then should it not be defended? Uzair said: “My basic question is why the protesters were not stopped when they were entering into military premises.” Justice Rizvi said for maintaining internal discipline the army is required to make every effort, but it is said, in case of external aggression, it should do nothing.
Justice Amin questioned who asked the army to conduct trials, adding every time when such a situation emerged the legislature either through law, amendment or ordinance confer power to the army. Uzair responded that why we all think that the army has a solution for every illness, adding that instead of finding the root cause of the disease, are trying to treat something else.
Justice Hilali asked the counsel why his arguments are different from his client’s stance, as he (Imran) thinks the army has the solution to all ills, therefore, he only wanted to talk to the army rather than the politicians.
Uzair responded that he was not concerned about what was happening outside the court, and do not want to be involved in politics.
Justice Amin inquired had any senator or MNAs ever challenged the Army Act, and every time any such incident took place then petitions were filed that civilians should not be tried by the military courts.
Uzair contended that as the Parliament and other institutions were not performing their functions; therefore, people ultimately looked towards the courts. “Civil institutions are not allowed to develop.” He told the court for four years, the system remained intact from the trial of civilians under Army Act, questioning whether terrorism in the country has been eliminated.
Uzair argued that trial by the military court is not fair and transparent, as those are not independent and impartial, there is no right of appeal against the judgment of Court Martial, and judges in military courts are not permanent. He said Aitzaz Ahsan had told the Court that neither anyone can take or bring any paper from the military court.
Upon that, Justice Amin questioned then how the letters are written. Uzair then argued that the Court can give directions to the legislature as it had done in many cases such as in Azizullah Memon, and MQM, adding that in Asfandyar case, the court ordered the NAB to frame rules.
Justice Naeem Akhtar reminded him of another case. He said there was no provision for the extension of army chief, but the Supreme Court had given direction in that regard too.
The case was adjourned until today (Wednesday). Uzair has completed his arguments.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments