‘Only GHQ attackers to face military trial if parliament, Supreme Court are also targeted?’

Supreme Court judge: Supreme Court judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioning whether attacks on Parliament’s house, Supreme Court and General Registered Office (GHQ) were dealt with differently, and GHQ -related matters are dealing with two institutions against terrorism (ATC). The seven-member constitutional bench led by justice aminuddin Khan heard the intra-man against the court with civilians in military courts, where his arguments were presented by former main judge Jawad Khawaja, Khawaja Ahmad. During the hearing of Judge Mandokhail, he noted that in his opinion, all three attacks should be treated with them. Meanwhile, Ahmad claimed that civilians could not be subjected under any circumstances in court, and stated that military courts did not meet the requirements of a fair trial. He noted that all five SC judges – in the previous judgment – had different views on the transparency of military courts. The lawyer also asked if there was a distinction between a terrorist, a spy helping the enemy and an ordinary civilian. The justice of Hasan Azhar Rizvi advises the legal representative to distinguish in his arguments, to whom Ahmad responded that he was not advocating a terrorist or the accused, and claimed that if civilians could be a court, he would not be 21. The judge pointed out that the change contributed to the military law of certain crimes, while Ahmad faced that if the court was possible before the change, the court would have to declare that the constitutional change was not unnecessary. Mandokhail also noted that 21. Ahmad further claimed that Article 175 was also changed in the 21st Annex and that the military courts did not provide bail until the judgment was reached. Rizvi justice said that military courts are performing rapid tests, that they often issue judgments within 15 days, so the deposit is irrelevant. He added that the appeal against the military court’s decision is reviewed by independent forums and that the accused has the rights before and after conviction. Ahmad agreed that the military act was well structured, but insisted that its usability had to be clarified. He called on the court not to open the court door in court, because the approval of the appeal would be against human rights. After hearing the arguments, the best court postponed the hearing until tomorrow (Tuesday).