ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Mandokhail has asked whether army officers have the necessary experience to impose death sentences on the accused. His remarks came during the hearing of an intra-judicial appeal against civilian trials in military courts by a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan. In its unanimous five-judge panel verdict on October 23 last year, the Supreme Court declared the trials of civilians in military courts invalid and ordered that 103 suspects be tried in civilian courts. However, on 13 December 2023, a six-judge bench of the high court – with Justice Musarrat Hilal dissenting from the majority – reversed its order of 23 October on petitions challenging the earlier verdict, which was then challenged. However, following a recess, the Constitutional Court in December last year conditionally allowed military courts to hand down reserved verdicts on 85 civilians still in custody for their alleged involvement in the May 9, 2023 riots. The May 9 riots refer to violent protests sparked by the arrest of PTI’s founder in a corruption case, during which government facilities, including the headquarters, were also attacked. A military court convicted all 85 accused in the same month, but a few days before, 19 convicts were pardoned after applying for clemency. During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail observed that the Army Act applies only to the army and the court must ensure that fundamental rights and justice are upheld for all. Judge Musarrat Hilali sought to clarify who proposes sentences in military courts, noting that it was her view that cases are heard by one person, while sentencing decisions are made by commanding officers who have not heard the case. Khawaja Haris, counsel for the Ministry of Defence, explained that the Advocate General’s Branch (JAG) assists in drafting the judgments. Justice Hilali examined the judicial structure of military trials in other countries, to which Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that globally, panels of military courts are usually composed of military officers. Haris claimed that these officers have experience in running courts. Justice Hilali highlighted an incident where an army chief’s plane was forced to leave the country by switching off the airport lights, putting all passengers on board at risk. She pointed out that despite the importance of the event, which led to martial law in the country, the case was not tried in a military court. Haris replied that kidnapping was not a crime under the Army Act, so there was no court-martial. Justice Mandokhail said that despite his 34 years of experience, he did not consider himself an expert in his field and questioned whether army officers had the necessary knowledge and expertise to award the accused the death penalty. Haris assured the oversight committee that he would elaborate on court-martial procedures in the next phase of his arguments. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman informed the apex court that around 5,000 persons were implicated in the May 9 events, of which 105 were placed at the scene of the incidents and handed over to military courts, according to evidence. The Constitutional Court of the ÚS later adjourned the hearing of the internal appeal against the civil trials in the military courts until Monday.
