During the hearing of petitions against the trial of civilians in military courts, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that if the defendants are being kept in the conditions described by the petitioner’s lawyers, it is wrong. He suggested that it would be better to proceed with the case and reach a decision.
Supreme Court’s Hearing
A seven-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat, and Shahid Bilal, heard the petitions against civilian trials in military courts.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Lawyer Salman Akram Raja: Petitioned that the families of the accused had not been allowed to meet them for weeks.
- Lawyer Latif Khosa: Claimed that the accused were being kept in poor conditions.
Justice Mandokhail questioned how it was known that the accused were in poor conditions if meetings had not taken place. The petitioners’ lawyers responded that those who had met the accused reported their hands were tied behind their backs. Addressing the Attorney General, Justice Mandokhail emphasized that if the conditions were as described, it was inappropriate, stressing the importance of humanity.
Attorney General’s Response
The Attorney General stated that his information suggested meetings occurred every Thursday and agreed to check and provide a detailed report.
Proceedings and Requests
Justice Mandokhail indicated that the case should be completed to reach a conclusion. Salman Akram Raja requested that the detained individuals be transferred to civilian custody, but Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar highlighted that challenging the legal provisions in question did not permit such a transfer.
Hafeezullah Niazi mentioned that his last meeting with his son happened due to the court’s kindness, to which Justice Mandokhail clarified that it was a right, not a favor.
Court’s Approach
Justice Mandokhail stated that starting the case would lead to a conclusion. The court inquired if the lawyer for Jawad S. Khawaja had any objections to the bench, to which the lawyer expressed satisfaction and requested that the case be heard and decided.
Justice Aminuddin emphasized that the case would proceed according to the court’s methods, not at the petitioner’s discretion.
Additional Representation
Hamid Khan appeared on behalf of the Lahore High Court Bar. Justice Mandokhail noted that they would consider his input as an advisor and questioned why the bar wished to become a party to the case. Hamid Khan responded that the bar had its own stance on the matter.
Faisal Siddiqui withdrew his request for live broadcasting of the hearing, emphasizing the need for a prompt decision by the court.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court approved Hamid Khan’s request to become a party by a 2-5 majority and adjourned the hearing on the petitions against civilian trials in military courts until July 11.
Historical Context
On October 23, the Supreme Court declared the trial of civilians in military courts illegal, ordering that all accused from May 9 be tried in regular courts. Subsequently, Pakistan’s federal government and the Ministry of Defense filed intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court’s decision. Last December, the Supreme Court suspended the decision to halt civilian trials in military courts.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the complex interplay between military and civilian judicial systems in Pakistan.
Read Also: Kenyan High Court Declares Arshad Sharif’s Killing Unconstitutional and Illegal