SC moved against conviction of 25 civilians by mly courts in Imran’s era

ISLAMABAD: A request was made to the Supreme Court on Tuesday to overturn the trial, conviction, and sentence of 25 civilians conducted during the tenure of former prime minister Imran Khan, who served as the chief executive of the country.

Lt-Col. (retd) Inam-ul-Rehiem filed a petition in the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that the trial of 29 civilians under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, was in violation of articles 4, 9, 10, 10-A, 25, and 175 of the Constitution of 1973. The petitioner argued that these trials were null and void from the beginning and had no legal effect.

Furthermore, the petitioner urged the Supreme Court to hold Imran Khan, former army chief Gen (retired) Qamar Javed Bajwa, and Lt-Gen (retired) Faiz Hameed responsible for the abduction and illegal detention of 29 civilians.

The petitioner requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against them for the abuse of their powers, misuse of authority, and misuse of state machinery.

The respondents in the case include the Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Gen (retired) Qamar Javed Bajwa, Lt-Gen (retired) Faiz Hameed, Judge Advocate General of the JAG’s Department GHQ, AG’s Branch, and the Registrars of the Lahore High Court, Peshawar High Court, Sindh High Court, Balochistan High Court, Quetta, and Islamabad High Court.

The petitioner requested the apex court to declare the trial of 29 civilians under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, violated various provisions of the laws mentioned, rendering all investigations and subsequent actions taken null and void.

Additionally, the petitioner called upon the apex court to declare that Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Gen (retired) Qamar Javed Bajwa, and Lt-Gen (retired) Faiz Hameed had exceeded their power by unlawfully abducting, detaining, and sentencing the civilians without due process of law. These actions were deemed to be in violation of the fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees afforded to every citizen under the Constitution.

The petitioner prayed: “Criminal proceedings should be initiated against these respondents for the abduction, illegal detention, and conviction of the 29 civilians without due process of law and in violation of the fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees for every citizen under the Constitution.”

Similarly, the petitioner requested the apex court to direct respondent no. 5, Judge Advocate General of the JAG’s Department GHQ, to present the complete record of trials of all civilians conducted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for the fair and just disposal of the present petition.

Furthermore, the petitioner appealed to the apex court to direct the registrars of all high courts to provide the complete record of cases of all civilians tried under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, pending before their respective high courts, along with complete order sheets, for the fair and just disposal of the present petition.

The petitioner raised questions about the legality of the trial of 27 civilian individuals under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, without the registration of FIRs against them. The petitioner also questioned the lawfulness of the trial of these individuals without their production before a magistrate under Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and without transferring their cases to military authorities from the criminal courts of general and special jurisdiction.

Additionally, the petitioner questioned if the trial of 27 civilian accused persons under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, violated their rights to access legal counsel of their choice, which are guaranteed by articles 10-A, 25, and 175 of the Constitution of 1973.

The petitioner further questioned if a civilian can be arrested without an FIR and whether the trial of a civilian through a military court can be conducted with the approval of the chief executive or prime minister.

Lt-Col. (retd.) Inam-ul-Rahiem also questioned whether a civilian can be detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate and whether military authorities can take custody of a civilian without the intervention of a district and sessions judge.

Similarly, the petitioner questioned whether a trial conducted without the presence of counsel of choice can be considered a fair trial.

The petitioner also questioned if the cases of the 29 civilians convicted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, violated the principle of concurrent jurisdiction as laid down in Section 94 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The petitioner further raised the question of whether respondent no. 2, as the chief executive or prime minister, respondent no. 3, as the chief of army staff, and respondent no. 4 were not guilty of the illegal abduction, detention, and conviction of the 29 civilians. Likewise, the petitioner questioned if the prime minister and his cabinet were not responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, including the 29 civilians convicted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioner also raised the concern of whether the prime minister had violated his oath of office by approving the trial of 29 civilians by military courts without ensuring a fair trial and due process, including the right to appeal to an independent court.

The petitioner argued that the trial of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, was a result of the unconstitutional decision of the federal government headed by respondent no. 2, the chief executive of the country, and was facilitated by respondent no. 3 and 4, the chief of army staff and the director general of Inter-Services Intelligence. Therefore, respondents 2 to 4 have been included as individuals responsible for the case.

Moreover, the petitioner said that the Judge Advocate General of the JAG’s Department GHQ, being the custodian of records of all court-martials conducted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, has been included as respondent no. 5.

The petitioner argued that several cases of civilians tried under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, are pending with different high courts in the country without any resolution. Therefore, the registrars of all high courts in the country have been included as respondents no. 6 to 10.

The petitioner stated that the subject matter of the present petition, which includes the unprecedented trial of 29 civilians under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, is a matter of significant public importance and a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 10-A, 14, and 25 of the Constitution of 1973.

“The aforementioned trials violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution and, therefore, represent a matter of public importance,” argued the petitioner.

Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that Imran Khan, the respondent, had filed a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court himself, seeking a declaration that the trial of civilians was unlawful. However, the trials of these civilians under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act of 1923, were conducted on his orders as the chief executive of the country.

Hence, the petitioner stated that the conduct of respondent Imran Khan amounts to an admission of illegal acts and offences committed by him, for which he should be held responsible.

The petitioner requested the apex court to first declare that the trial of 29 civilians conducted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in conjunction with the Official Secrets Act, 1923, violated Articles 4, 9, 10, 10-A, 25, and 175 of the Constitution of 1973, rendering them void ab initio and without legal effect.

Secondly, the petitioner urged the court to declare respondents no. 2 to 4 responsible for the abduction, illegal detention, and mistreatment of the 29 civilians and to initiate criminal proceedings against them for the abuse of power, misuse of authority, and manipulation of state machinery.