Islamabad:
During the hearing of the military courts case in the Supreme Court, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that does this army officer have enough experience and expertise to be sentenced to death ?
A seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case. Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris presented arguments.
The seven-member constitutional bench includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that they should be satisfied with the trial procedures in military courts.
Justice Musarat Hilali remarked that the officer who conducts the trial does not himself pronounce the verdict in court. The officer conducting the trial sends the case to another senior officer, who pronounces the verdict. How can an officer who has not even heard the trial give a verdict?
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that I have been in this field for 34 years, but I still do not consider myself complete. Does this army officer have enough experience and expertise to be sentenced to death?
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that he would explain the military trial procedure in full in the second part of the arguments.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the Army Act applies only to the army. We will take into account whether military officers receive basic rights and justice or not.
Justice Musarat Hilali raised the question of clarifying who writes the verdict in a military court. According to my information, someone else hears the case and the commanding officer decides on the sentence. How can someone who has not heard the case decide on the sentence?
The Defense Ministry lawyer said that Jack Branch is assisting in writing the decision.
Justice Musarat Hilali said, "Khawaja, you gave an example that military trials were also held in the United States. If such a trial is held in another country, who is the judge?"
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that all over the world, only officers sit in courts martial. Lawyer Khawaja Haris replied that officers who sit in courts martial gain trial experience. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the judge is asking whether these officers also have legal qualifications.
Justice Musarat Hilali said in his remarks, "If I may, may I ask the question myself? An army chief's plane was asked to leave the country by turning off the airport lights. In this incident, all the passengers were put in danger."
Khawaja Haris said that how could a person who was not on the plane hijack the plane?
Justice Musarat Hilali said that there was a little fuel left in the plane, but it was still put at risk. Khawaja Haris said in his arguments that I will not talk politics here, but later the Supreme Court reviewed it and admitted that there was enough fuel left in the plane.
Justice Musarat Hilali remarked that martial law was imposed in the country due to this one incident, but even after martial law, that trial was not held in a military court.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that hijacking was not a crime listed in the Army Act, so the trial could not have been held in a military court.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the difference on this point is clear, let's move on. Justice Musarat Hilali said that wait, one more question arises in this, if a war or military aircraft is hijacked, then where will the trial take place?
Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said that the total number of accused in the May 9 incidents was around 5,000, and there is solid evidence of the presence of 105 accused who were taken to military courts at the scene of the incident.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the Army Act applies only to those who have violated the Official Secrets Act, and the Army Act does not apply to every terrorist.
Justice Musarat Hilali asked whether the military courts conducted the trial in the light of the same FIRs that were registered in the police stations? How can a military court proceed with cases registered under the Pakistan Penal Code and the ATA? The copies of the three FIRs that have been given to us do not contain the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that more provisions could be added after the investigation.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that there is a separate procedure for adding more provisions, was it based on police investigation? Khawaja Haris said that when the accused goes into military custody, there is its own system of investigation.
The Additional Attorney General said that only three cases have been presented to the court, a total of 35 FIRs of May 9 and 5,000 accused. Only those 105 people whose presence was proven should be tried in military courts.
The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench adjourned the hearing of the military courts case until Monday.