SC seeks govt assurance on fair trial, right to appeal for May 9 suspects

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought an assurance from the federal government that the suspects allegedly involved in May 9 incident would be proceeded against with fair trial besides giving them the right of appeal against their conviction by military courts.

A six-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A Malik, heard identical petitions challenging the trial of civilians in the military courts under the Army Act 1952.

Former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), have challenged the trial of civilians in military courts. Commencing his arguments, Attorney General (AG) Mansoor Usman Awan presented before the court the second volume of the government’s reply comprising colourful photographs of May 9 incidents wherein sensitive military installations were attacked and ransacked, what he called, in a systematic, planned and coordinated manner.

The CJP asked the attorney general as to whether the suspects of May 9 will be proceeded against with fair trial and will be provided right of appeal against their convictions. “You will have to satisfy the court that after the trial of suspects in the May 9 incidents, the accused persons will have fair opportunity of right of appeal against their conviction and will be ensured fair trial,” he told the AG.

The CJP recalled that in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, the right of appeal was granted against the military court’s judgment. The AG replied that the court could order for providing the right of appeal to the accused persons. At this, Justice Yahya Afridi questioned that instead of making legislation for this purpose, why the AG was asking the court to provide the right of appeal. Justice Bandial observed that the petitioners were not seeking any impunity or freedom for the accused persons but were concerned about transparency during their trial.

The CJP said that he could not recall any such attack on military installations in his life, adding that the accused persons, if found involved in the matter, should be proceeded against in accordance with law and provided fair trials.

During the hearing, the AG pointed out that Section 302 was also included in a Lahore case. To an inquiry, he told the court that no soldier was martyred during the May 9 attacks. At this, Justice Mazahar Naqvi asked when there was no martyrdom, how Section 302 was imposed.

Justice Ayesha A Malik expressed serious apprehensions over the process of trial in military courts, adding that nobody knows where the accused persons are. The judge observed that it is a matter of basic fundamental rights of the citizens wherein due process of law should be ensured with fair trial. During the hearing, Justice Bandial also asked the AG as to whether the military courts, after convicting the suspects, will give detailed reasoning as the May 9 incidents have heinous aspect.

The AG replied that detailed reasoning may be provided in the judgments of military courts if the apex court orders so.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen also observed that the basic question was as to whether right of appeal will be ensured to the accused persons after convicted by the military courts.

“We give you a suggestion to seek instructions from the government on the right of appeal and when you would be able to do so,” Justice Ahsen asked the AG.

Meanwhile, the AG sought two days for seeking instructions from the government which the court granted and adjourned the matter until Friday at 9:30am.

Earlier, during the course of hearing, the AG, while sharing the details of May 9 incidents, informed the court that the Corps Commander’s House in Lahore, army installations in Mianwali, Sialkot, Rawalpindi and Bannu, including the boundary wall of Pakistan Air Force base in Mianwali, where Mirage fighter jets are kept, Hamza Camp, the Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) office in Rawalpindi, Signals Mess, the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology and National Institute of Heart Diseases (AFIC-NIHD) in Chaklala, Rawalpindi, were attacked.

He further informed the court that miscreants who attacked the ISI base in Faisalabad were armed. He further submitted that around 62 incidents were recorded in Punjab alone, during which around 250 people, including 198 security personnel, were injured.

He told the court that the attack on the Lahore Corps Commander House took place at 5:40pm, noting that all attacks on military installations took place “approximately at the same time”.

The AG told the court that as a result of violence that occurred on May 9, and shortly thereafter, the total damage caused to be valued at Rs2,539.19 million, including Rs1,982.95 million losses to military establishments, equipment and vehicles. He further submitted that more than 200 people, including 184 law enforcers, were injured during the violence.

In this respect, the AG showed pictures of people entering General Headquarters Rawalpindi as well as images of miscreants wearing the Lahore Corps Commander’s uniform.

“Such an incident had never taken place in the country’s history,” the AG contended.

Referring to the arguments put by the petitioner’s counsels regarding Liaqat Hussain’s case, the AG submitted that in that case, the crime was of a civilian nature, adding that even in the petitions filed against the 21st Constitutional Amendment, the offence was of a civilian nature.

At this, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi observed that the 21st Amendment case was totally different, adding that military courts were established through a constitutional amendment.

CJP Bandial asked the AG about the punishment in the military courts under Section 7 of the Army Act to which the AG replied that punishment is two years under sections 3 and 9 in military courts, adding that it’s a maximum punishment.

The chief justice then observed that punishment in ordinary courts is more, adding that there were harsher punishments under the civil laws.

Justice Munib Akhtar, while referring to the facts and allegations placed before the court by the AG, observed that they were serious in nature.

The judge observed that entering a prohibited area was also a crime, adding that Section 3 of the Army Act would be applicable in the matter in hand.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing until Friday, directing the AG to seek instructions from the government on the right of appeal to the accused persons.