May 9 suspects’ trial in military courts: SC to give verdict today on constitution of full court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan will announce its decision today (Wednesday) on a plea seeking the constitution of a full court for hearing identical petitions challenging the trial of May 9 suspects in military courts.

A six-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik, resumed hearing on identical petitions challenging the government’s decision to conduct the trials of civilians in military courts.

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, former CJP Jawaad S Khwaja, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, Karamat Ali and others had challenged the trial of civilians in military courts. The court reserved the verdict on the plea of Karamat Ali, one of the petitioners seeking the constitution of a full court for hearing the matter of trial of civilians in the military courts.

Aitzaz Ahsan, Imran Khan and Supreme Court Bar Association President Abid S Zubairi opposed the constitution of a full court after expressing their full confidence in the current six-member bench.

Ahmed Hussain, counsel for Jawaad S Khwaja, came to rostrum and submitted that basically they didn’t want any special privilege from the court, adding that the petitioner approached the court as an ordinary person for the enforcement of basic fundamental rights of accused.

“Of course, Jawaad S Khwaja Sahib is a Gosha Nasheen person and one of the reasons is that he is a non-political person,” the chief justice remarked and asked Attorney General Mansoor Usman if he wanted to say something. “What you can do, we have given you some points to deal with,” the CJP told the attorney general.

He replied he had placed the names of 102 accused who would be tried under the Army Act, 1952.

He submitted that he placed before the court a complete table, containing the names of 102 persons, currently in military custody. He gave the court details of the accused taken into custody for their involvement in attacking military installations, including the General Headquarters, Hamza Camp, Corps Commander’s House Lahore, Military Garrison Gujranwala, Baloch Regiment, Abbottabad, Chakdara Fort, Punjab Regiment, Mardan, etc. He said the accused were taken into custody on the basis of evidence and CCTV camera records, adding that seven of the suspects were directly involved in the attack on General Headquarters. He said they had taken into custody only those persons who were directly involved in the attacks on military installations.

Justice Naqvi asked the AG as to whether any proper inquiry was made before taking the accused into custody. The AG replied in the affirmative, adding that they were taken into custody with caution. The judge, however, observed that pick and choose was not allowed in the law to which the AG replied the process of pick and choose was not made in the arrest of accused. “So these 102 persons were directly involved in attacking military installations and you want to court-martial these persons,” the chief justice said. “But keep in mind we have two planks, one is fundamental rights and the other is Article 175(3) stipulating independence of judiciary,” the chief justice told AG. He observed that there should be an independent body to review if the arrests were made on the basis of solid evidence or not.

Justice Afridi asked the AG whether they had released anyone not found involved in the alleged matter.

Meanwhile, Faisal Siddiqui, counsel for Karamat Ali who sought a full court for the hearing, submitted that they had cited three reasons in their petition for constituting a full court. He cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Benzair Bhutto and Mustafa Khar. He advocated a full court for hearing the identical petitions, stressing that only a full court judgment could counter any future contemptuous attempt to sabotage any judgment passed in this petition as well as linked petitions. He submitted that Justice Afridi and Justice Mansoor had also suggested the constitution of a full court.

Later, the court invited the other petitioners to give their viewpoint on which Aitzaz came to the rostrum first and submitted that they had full confidence in the current bench, adding that earlier the court had included all available judges in the bench. He submitted that after declining to sit on the bench by two judges, this court was even a full court, adding that there was no controversy at all after the two judges declined to sit on the bench. He submitted that 102 persons should be given into judicial custody. “In fact, the request for constitution of a full court is tantamount to delaying tactics,” he said.

Later, he again rose and said: “I want to say something. Demanding constitution of a full court might be an attempt to deny the court of the finest moment in the judicial history of Pakistan.”

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Junaid Razzak whose son is in the military custody, told the court his son was not being treated well in custody. He said if a full court was constituted, directions should be given for giving the custody of his client’s son into judicial custody. Similarly, Zaman Khan Wardak, another petitioner who was available on video link from the Karachi Registry, stressed that if a full court was constituted during this period, all the 102 persons in the military custody be given in the judicial custody.

Likewise, Abid S Zubairi also expressed full confidence in the present six-member bench, adding that the decision of the apex court was final whether it was a two-member bench or a 10-member bench and its decision was binding on all under Article 189 of the Constitution. “The court should give its decision on its own instead of following the wishes of someone else,” he contended.

Shoaib Shaheen, counsel for the PTI chairman, also reposed full confidence in the present bench which he said had almost heard the lengthy arguments of both sides. “This is the pure matter of enforcement of fundamental rights and it can’t be suspended as well,” Shaheen submitted, adding that apparently, the demand for constitution of a full court was aimed to prolong the matter and tantamount to delaying tactics.

“An attempt is being made to make the matter controversial before the final verdict,” he said and recalled when a five-member bench of the apex court gave its decision on the ruling of former deputy speaker National Assembly Qasim Suri, it was highly lauded.

But when the same bench gave another decision on the election of Punjab Assembly, the decision was criticized. Therefore, it is not at all acceptable that when the court gives it decision according to the wishes of people, it is lauded but when a decision comes against, it is subjected to criticism.