Military Courts Updates

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.,

Detainees in military custody have no visitation rights, AAG informs LHC​

Law officer informs court rules, laws do not exist for visitation rights for those detained by military

Rana Yasif
August 25, 2023

The Punjab government informed the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday that no rules or laws exist that allow visitation rights for those individuals in the custody of the armed forces.

The statement was given by Additional Advocate General Ghulam Sarwar Nihung in the court of Justice Sultan Tanvir during the hearing of a petition filed by columnist Hafeezullah Khan Niazi seeking permission to meet his son, Barrister Hassan Khan Niazi.

The additional advocate general further argued that police or prison rules are not applicable to those held in the custody of the armed forces. However, he said, an application can be submitted before the concerned quarters requesting a meeting, and it can be accommodated depending on the sensitivity of the case.

Justice Sultan Tanvir sought further arguments from the lawyers on the aforementioned petition by the next date of the hearing.

Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, in his petition, had also sought his son’s recovery as well as the initiation of an inquiry against those responsible officials allegedly involved in detaining Hassan Niazi.

During the proceedings today, Justice Tanvir asked law officer Nihung for an update on the meeting between the petitioner and detenue.

Nihung informed the court that such cases are also pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, hence the petitioner is advised to approach the country’s top court.

The petitioner’s counsel, Ishtiaq A. Khan, told the court that the assurance given by the attorney general of Pakistan in the apex court was violated and added the no meeting was allowed despite the assurance.

At this, Justice Sultan Tavnir asked whether that assurance was confined merely to the 102 arrested people. Responding to the judge's query, advocate Khan implored the court that the Supreme Court’s order was relevant to all who were in the custody of the military.

He further argued that the court has the power to direct the concerned quarters to allow a meeting between the arrested and the petitioners.

The advocate further informed the court that the country’s top court was told that no journalist or lawyer is in the army’s custody, but 'the truth is that journalist Imran Riaz Khan and Barrister Hassan Niazi are in the army’s custody'.

"The Army Act could not usurp the rights given to the citizens in the Constitution," he told the court.

Giving an example, he asked if Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav's family could be allowed to meet him then why were the families of the journalist or the lawyer not being allowed.

On a point, the law officer told the court that the matter of trial under the Army Act is pending before the SC. The matter of whether those who are under army’s custody could be allowed to meet anyone came before the apex court and a decision is pending.

'Detainees in military custody have no visitation rights' | The Express Tribune

Law officer informs court rules, laws do not exist for visitation rights for those detained by military

tribune.com.pk

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,

Military court trial: SC moved for early hearing​

HASNAAT MALIK

Plea requests directions for Punjab IG to provide protection, security to applicant, family members

A petitioner, who had challenged the trial of his son in a military court following the May 9 incident, on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of the case.

Junaid Razzaq submitted an application through his counsel Salman Akram Raja, arguing that the military court trials had already begun, and requested that the case be scheduled for the third week of October.

The petitioner claimed that this commencement of military court trials for civilians was a clear violation of the apex court's order issued on Aug 3, 2023.

“As such, an early hearing of the titled petition shall be in the interest of justice, otherwise if the trial of the petitioner's son commences and concludes in haste, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss,” the plea contended.

The petitioner had already filed a separate application urging the Supreme Court to immediately halt the military court proceedings in his son's case.

 

[ghazi52]

,..,,.

SC to take up pleas challenging military trials of civilians on Oct 23​

Haseeb Bhatti
October 20, 2023

A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court will take up about a dozen petitions challenging the trials of civilians in military courts on October 23 (Monday).

Following the May 9 violence, the National Assembly had passed a resolution demanding that the rioters be tried under the Army Act. Days later, the army had revealed that military proceedings against “102 miscreants” were under way.

Led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the bench includes Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik.

According to the cause list issued by the apex court, the hearing is scheduled to begin at 11:30am on October 23.

The pleas include those filed by the PTI, former premier Imran Khan, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan, former chief justice of Pakistan Jawwad S Khawaja, five members of the civil society, Junaid Razzaq and Zaman Khan Vardag.

The last time a six-judge SC bench had taken up challenges to the trial of civilians in military courts was on August 3.

The same month, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea, filed by senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi on behalf of civil society activists, to constitute a full court for the case.

The next day, it postponed further proceedings for an indefinite period, despite requests by the petitioners to conclude and decide the matter during that week.

Ex-CJP Justice Umar Ata Bandial had observed that the court did not want to see the Pakistan Army pointing their guns at civilians, since they were meant to defend the country and its people. “The court would want to restrain the Pakistan Army from taking any unconstitutional step,” he had noted.

A day ago, CJP Qazi Faez Isa, while hearing a different petition, had observed the court intends to hear important cases — such as the trial of civilians by military courts and election matters — in the coming weeks.

During a hearing on June 27, the federal government had assured the court that, up to that date, no formal trial had commenced against 102 individuals held by military authorities in connection with the May 9 incidents of violence and arson.

Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had told the court that all the accused were still under investigation, and no trial ultimately would be conducted in a summary manner.

Recently, an application was filed before the apex court to fix the military court case as early as possible, preferably in the third week of October.

The applicant, Junaid Razzaq, had pleaded that he had been informed that the trial of civilians by the military courts had commenced in sheer violation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

The applicant had pleaded that an early hearing would be in the interest of justice. Otherwise, if the trial of his son, Azam Junaid, commenced and concluded hastily, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss.

He had also pleaded with the court to declare that the referral of his son’s trial to the military authorities was unlawful, unconstitutional and void. The court should also declare Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 as ultra vires of the Constitution, he had contended.

Pleas seeking polls in 90-day timeframe​

This photo combo shows Justice Athar Minallah (L), CJP Qazi Faez Isa (C) and Justice Aminuddin Khan (R). — Supreme Court website

Separately, the Supreme Court will also take up on the same day four pleas seeking the holding of general elections within the constitutional timeframe of 90 days from the dissolution of the National Assembly on August 9.

The three-member bench that will hear the pleas is led by CJP Isa and includes Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aminuddin Khan.

The petitions include one moved by the PTI, which had been returned on September 15 with objections. Another one had been filed by the SCBA in August, which sought directives to the ECP to announce polls within the 90-day time period mandated by the Constitution.

The other two pleas were filed by (retd) Justice Ibadur Rehman Lodhi, a former Lahore High Court judge, and Advocate Munir Ahmad.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.

SC declares military trials of civilians null and void​

Five-member bench unanimously declares that civilians would be tried under ordinary criminal laws

Correspondent
October 23, 2023

A general view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan building at the evening hours, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 7, 2022. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday declared trials of civilians arrested following violent protests in the country on May 9 in military courts null and void.

The apex court announced its short verdict after reserving its decision following proceedings in the case earlier today on a set of petitions questioning the legitimacy of trying civilians in military courts.

The court, by a majority of 4 to 1, has held that the trial of civilians under Section 2 D (i) (ii) of the Army Act is unconstitutional. The five-member bench unanimously declared that civilians would be tried under ordinary criminal laws.

Justice Yahya Afridi reserved judgement on the validity of Section 2 D (i) (ii).

“Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the trials of civilians and accused persons, being around 103 persons who were identified in the list provided to the Court by the learned Attorney General for Pakistan by way of CMA No.5327 of 2023 in Constitution Petition No.24 of 2023 and all other persons who are now or may at any time be similarly placed in relation to the events arising from and out of 9th and 10th May, 2023 shall be tried by Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction established under the ordinary and / or special law of the land in relation to such offences of which they may stand accused,” read the written order.

Civilians were arrested under the Army Act following incidents of rioting and vandalism following Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9.

A five-member bench, led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, heard the case. Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi, and Justice Ayesha Malik were part of the bench.

As the hearing commenced earlier today, Jawad S. Khawaja's lawyer, Ahmed Hussain, expressed his intention to read the order from the previous hearing. However, the judge reminded him that during the last session, the attorney general had presented his arguments and suggested allowing him to conclude his case before proceeding with other matters.

Lawyer Salman Akram Raja also argued that the military courts have started the trial of civilians despite giving assurances in the court but Justice Ahsan directed him to listen to the attorney general first.

Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan provided a comprehensive summary of the previous hearing and explained why a constitutional amendment was not necessary for the present trial.

He further added that he would draw insights from Article 175 and read out the Liaquat Hussain case. The AGP assured the bench that the accused in the May 9 case would be tried in military courts with the same procedural rigour as civil courts and argued that evidence would be recorded, and detailed reasoning would be provided in the verdict.

The court then inquired about the status of the accused. The attorney general clarified that among the accused were both citizens and members of other organizations. They would be tried under a dual legal framework, adhering to the Army Act and civilian court standards.

The accused would be indicted, ensuring the due process requirements of a criminal case, he said.
The AGP also asserted that Article 10A of the Constitution would be upheld. Appeals would be made to the high court and, subsequently, to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, even attacks on restricted areas and buildings could be subject to military court jurisdiction.

Justice Ayesha and Justice Mazahar then brought up the distinction between the Army Act's emphasis on discipline within the armed forces and the law's application to civilians. The attorney general argued that the law extended to those temporarily associated with the armed forces and even the ones who were debarred from duty.

Justice Ayesha continued about the Constitution's commitment to protecting fundamental rights. She maintained that the law was meant to ensure that the fundamental rights of the Constitution would not be violated, rather than infringing on them. AGP Awan, however, continued to defend his perspective, referring to the connection of individuals with the armed forces.
Read May 9 accused 'show faith' in military courts
Justice Ayesha further asked AGP Awan how he would connect his arguments with Article 8(3) of the Constitution. “According to the law, a link to the armed forces is necessary [for trial in military courts],” she maintained
Justice Ahsan also remarked that the country's Constitution protected fundemental rights. .
On Sunday, the relatives of detainees approached SC, seeking to be party to the case. Their position was that the apex court was affected by the military courts' proceedings and should, therefore, involve them in the case.
Simultaneously, the federal government informed the apex court that 102 individuals were arrested in connection with the May 9 and 10 incidents. They were assuring the court that trials in military courts would adhere to the ongoing SC case.
“Those found guilty would receive light sentences, while those who had served jail terms would be released,” it said. After the military trial, the convicts will be able to approach the relevant forum against the punishments as per law.
The persons taken into military custody were arrested under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 and the Official Secrets Act. The arrested persons are in custody for their involvement in the attack on Hamza Camp, Bannu Camp and Gujranwala Camp.