The trial of civilians in military courts has been a subject of significant debate in Pakistan’s judicial system. Recently, the issue came under scrutiny during the fourth hearing of petitions filed against the trial of civilians in military courts. The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan, confirmed that no civilian trials were currently taking place in military courts. However, conflicting statements from the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General (DG) Major General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry raised concerns regarding the transparency and consistency of the proceedings. This article examines the ongoing discussions surrounding the trial of civilians in military courts and the constitutional implications associated with this practice.
A larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, is currently hearing the petitions against the government’s decision to try civilians in military courts. The petitioners, including PTI Chairman Imran Khan, former Chief Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and civil society members, have requested the Supreme Court to declare military trials of civilians as unconstitutional.
One of the key arguments presented by the petitioners is that civilians cannot be tried in military courts, as it raises concerns about the violation of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. They argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to allow civilian trials in military courts, as demonstrated by the 21st constitutional amendment, which established that such trials require specific constitutional provisions.
The question of whether civilians can be tried under the Army Act becomes central to the legal arguments. The petitioners contend that the Army Act does not apply to civilians and that trying civilians in military courts should be limited to war situations or cases with internal relationships to the armed forces. However, the defence argues that civilians can be tried in military courts if they have internal connections with the forces, as stated in judicial precedents and the F B Ali case.
Determining the internal connection of civilians and deciding their trial jurisdiction become pivotal concerns. The lack of clarity regarding the specific law under which cases are transferred to military courts raises doubts about the transparency and legality of the process. The absence of an official Secret Act further complicates the matter, as the court relies on the discretion of the AGP and the defence to provide relevant information and legal justifications.
The petitioners emphasize that civilians should not be deprived of their fundamental rights, as enshrined in Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution. They argue that trials of civilians should be conducted by judges appointed under Article 175(3), ensuring due legal process and protection of fundamental rights. The defence, on the other hand, asserts that the Army Act can be applied to civilians who influence the operations of the armed forces.
Read More: Karachi Receives Second Oil Shipment from Russia
A critical aspect of the ongoing discussions is the public disclosure of the list of 102 individuals currently under military custody. While the AGP requested that the list not be made public, the bench and some petitioners argued for its disclosure to ensure transparency and accountability. The issue of open public trials conducted under anti-terrorism provisions for those responsible for the May 9 events was also raised.
The trial of civilians in military courts remains a contentious issue in Pakistan’s judicial system. The ongoing hearings and arguments highlight the concerns surrounding the constitutional validity of such trials and the need for transparency and due legal process. While the AGP has reassured that no trials have commenced, conflicting statements and the absence of written documentation raise doubts about the consistency and adherence to legal procedures. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will have significant implications for the protection of fundamental rights and the integrity of the judicial system in Pakistan.
