SC Judge Questions Military Court Officers’ Experience in Issuing Death Sentences

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court‘s constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin, continued hearing intra-court appeals regarding the nullification of civilian trials in military courts. During the proceedings, Defence Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris was unable to complete his arguments, and the hearing was adjourned until Monday.

The court revisited the 1999 plane hijacking case involving former President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Justice Musarat Hilali noted that while the incident led to the imposition of martial law, it was not tried in a military court. Khawaja Haris explained that hijacking is not covered under the Army Act, preventing such a trial.

The bench raised concerns about the qualifications and experience of military officers involved in trials, especially regarding death sentences. Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned whether military officers conducting trials had the requisite experience to issue such verdicts. He suggested that crimes like hijacking or murder could potentially be included in the Army Act, but emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of military court procedures.

Justice Hilali also raised concerns about the trial process, stating that the officer conducting a trial does not typically pronounce the verdict himself but sends it to a senior officer for final judgment. She pointed out discrepancies in how military court verdicts are written and sought clarification on the process.

Khawaja Haris explained that the military’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch assists in drafting the verdicts, but Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted the general perception that military trials focus primarily on punishment rather than trial procedure. He added that suspects in military courts are allowed to hire a lawyer of their choice.

Justice Mandokhel pointed out that the Army Act only applies to the military, questioning whether military officers would receive fundamental rights and justice. Justice Afghan noted that military courts do not follow civilian court procedures, but emphasized that the Constitution ensures protection of fundamental rights.

Further, Justice Hilali questioned the military court’s jurisdiction over cases registered under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), especially in the context of the May 9 incidents. Khawaja Haris argued that the Army Act applies only to those violating the Official Secrets Act, not every terrorist.

In response, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the court that of the 5,000 suspects in the May 9 cases, only 105 were tried in military courts based on their proven involvement.

Read More: Supreme Court Schedules Hearing on Civilian Trials in Military Courts

Khawaja Haris referenced past cases like that of Kulbhushan Jadhav, which were tried in military courts and recognized by the International Court of Justice. He also noted that appeals against military court decisions had been heard by high courts in terrorist-related cases.

The hearing continues, with the court questioning the scope and fairness of military court trials, especially regarding fundamental rights and the qualifications of military officers presiding over such sensitive cases.