Court’s decision did not give clean chit to crimes of May 9, says SC bench

ISLAMABAD: A seven-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, under Justice Aminuddin Khan, has resumed hearing on civilians’ trial in military courts case. Ministry of Defence’s lawyer Khawaja Haris is expected to conclude his arguments today.

Khawaja Haris said that the Army Act and Rules provide complete procedure for fair trial. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Khawaja Haris, “Which military trial decision do you agree with?” Khawaja Haris responded, “I do not agree with any decision.”

Justice Ayesha Malik declares Section 21d1 contradictory to fair trial.

Also read: Hearing of civilians’ trials in military courts case resumes

Justice Mandokhail said, “What was the majority of the decision in the 21st constitutional amendment?” Khawaja Haris replied that the majority decision would have been by nine judges. But the verdict was given by eight judges.

“The majority of the judges upheld the amendment in their own way,” government’s counsel said. Justice Mandokhail added that over eight justices declared the 21st constitutional amendment to be correct.

Khawaja Haris then added that the Supreme Court’s decision on military trial in Liaquat Hussain case was a decision given by nine judges. “FB Ali case was confirmed in Liaquat Hussain case,” he added.

Justice Mandokhail concurred by saying that in the 21st constitutional amendment case, majority of judges accepted FB Ali case.

The court asked the lawyer if any judge in 21st amendment case give an opinion of judicial review in FB Ali case. Khawaja Haris informed the court that no judge gave any such verdict.

During the proceedings, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the decision on 21^st amendment quoted the Attorney General to say that the case should be seen in the context of May 9.

Justice Mandokhail responded that the crime of May 9 has indeed taken place. “The court’s decision did not give a clean chit to this crime. But the question is that where the trial of this crime will take place?” he said, adding that the 21st Amendment decrees that the cases of political parties will not be tried in military courts.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar added that only if the crime fits into the Army Act, the trial will take place in a military court. Khawaja Haris added that there is a limit to political activity. “Attacking state property and violating state security is not political activity,” he added.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that tearing the uniform of a police officer is a crime, “here, the house of the Corps Commander Lahore was burned”. He elaborated, “On the same day, attacks took place at different places at the same time. This is the first time that attacks took place in different cities at the same time. There is no denial of the crime.”

Justice Mandokhail said, “If the Parliament was attacked, why was there no military trial? The Parliament is supreme. Doesn’t Parliament consider an attack on itself an insult?”

The constitutional bench adjourned the hearing until January 20 (Monday).