Military trials of civilians: SC reserves verdict on fresh plea for full court

A six-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a fresh petition seeking the formation of a full court to hear pleas challenging the military trials of civilians.

The bench comprised Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha A. Malik.

Earlier, the apex court had rejected the federal government’s plea to constitute a full court for the case.

However, a fresh application pertaining to the matter was moved yesterday by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi on behalf of civil society members. “The full court should include all judges willing and available for the adjudication on the fundamental and complex constitutional and legal questions,” it said.

The petition further stated that the petitioners would have no objection if all the judges of the SC were part of the proposed full court.

“It is categorically stated that unlike the government’s malafide actions, the petitioners have no objection, whatsoever, on any judge willing and available to hear this case,” it added.

During today’s hearing, the CJP discussed the plea with the other petitioners in the case, following which the apex court reserved its verdict on Siddiqi’s application. Justice Bandial said the bench would announce its decision after holding a discussion. He added that lawyers would be informed in case of a delay in the verdict.

However, a court associate later told reporters gathered outside the SC building that the reserved verdict would be announced tomorrow (Wednesday).

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, the CJP noted that senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi had petitioned the court a day earlier to form a full court to hear pleas against the military trials of civilians.

Justice Bandial then said that the bench would first hear the arguments of the lawyer representing ex-CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, one of the original petitioners in the case.

“My client is the former chief justice of Pakistan,” Advocate Khwaja Hussain Ahmed said. “My client wants the court to treat him like a common citizen, not a special person. He wants ‘ex-chief justice’ to be removed from his name.”

Here, Justice Bandial said that the former chief justice was a prominent personality and his petition was “apolitical”.

At one point, the apex court judge also asked if Siddiqi was “hiding”, to which he was told that the counsel was outside the courtroom for some work and would return soon.

As the hearing continued, Justice Naqvi said the law did not give permission to “pick and choose”, asking why the inquiry against civilians was not brought on record.

For his part, the AGP replied that a lot of caution was exercised during the arrests. “Only people directly involved were sent to military courts. Those who entered the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence have been sent to military courts,” he said.

However, Justice Bandial remarked that Awan’s claim could be proven if there was evidence available.

The AGP highlighted that the court had questions regarding why the remaining suspects, arrested for the violent events of May 9, were let go. “A lot of people were involved but arrests were made in the light of the evidence,” Awan said.

Here, Justice Naqvi again asked why an inquiry, if conducted, was not brought on record. In his reply, Awan insisted that the inquiry was present.

Subsequently, the CJP said, “You are saying that only people who attacked army installations were taken into custody.”

People who damaged the Lahore Corps Commander House, the AGP pointed out, were also arrested.

“This means that the government will conduct court martial of the 102 people arrested,” the top judge remarked.

Meanwhile, Awan said a report on 102 suspects facing military trials had been submitted to the top court. He also provided a breakdown of the arrests made following the May 9 violence.

According to the details, seven people were in custody for breaking into the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, four for attacking the army institute, 28 for attacking the Lahore corps commander’s residence, 15 for their involvement in attacks on army garrisons in Multan and Gujranwala, eight for attacking an ISI office in Faisalabad and five for their involvement in the attack on the PAF Air Base in Mianwali.

Fourteen suspects, the AGP continued, were involved in the attack on Chakdara gateway while seven attacked the Punjab Regiment Centre in Mardan. Moreover, 13 suspects were taken into custody for attacks on army garrisons in Abbottabad and Bannu.

“All these people were arrested on the basis of CCTV footage and other evidence,” he added.

On the other hand, Justice Ayesha noted that the reasons for sending the suspects to military courts were not mentioned in the magistrate’s order. Justice Naqvi also said that apparently only photographs had been collected in the “name of evidence”.

“It looks like you aren’t fully prepared to answer these questions,” the CJP stated, addressing the AGP. “We have to look at the constitutionality of the matter,” he added.

Justice Bandial then mentioned the plea filed by Siddiqi pertaining to the formation of a full court and said the bench would first hear arguments on this petition.

Subsequently, Siddiqi came to the rostrum. He said his plea “doesn’t have anything to do” with the government plea seeking the formation of a full court. “I will first elaborate on why our petition is different,” he said.

The lawyer explained that there were three reasons behind the filing of the application. “Even military dictator Gen Pervaiz Musharraf couldn’t oppose a full court decision,” he stated, recalling that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Yahya Afridi had also talked about constituting a full court.

“The AGP has already said that no suspect would be sentenced to life imprisonment or death,” Siddiqi said. “The attorney general has also assured that military trials would not commence without the SC’s knowledge.”

However, he claimed, the government had in recent days raised questions on the legality of court verdicts and stressed the importance of forming a full court for a case as important as military trials of civilians. “When there is fear of conflict between institutions, a full court should be constituted,” he said.

The CJP stated that some judges had refused to be a part of the bench and asked how a full court could be formed in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, Justice Naqvi asked if other petitioners in the case had a similar point of view after which former minister Aitzaz Ahsan came to the rostrum.

“This is very startling for me that the formation of the bench is being challenged at this stage of the case,” he said. “We have gone to jail for the honour of the apex court,” Ahsan said.

Ahsan asserted that he had “complete confidence” in the current bench, recalling that the court had included all available judges on the bench. “After the departure of two judges, this is a full court of sorts,” he said.

The lawyer then demanded that the 102 people in military custody be handed over to judicial custody.

After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its verdict on Siddiqi’s petition regarding the constitution of a full court bench.