When it comes to citizens’ rights to a fair trial, the Supreme Court is in a bind due to the DG ISPR presser.
An apex court bench in Islamabad has been given more work after a news conference by the military’s spokesperson and the decision of one of the bench members, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, to recuse himself from the case.
Petitioners, most of whom are from Lahore, are asking the bench led by president Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial to release those accused of vandalising army installations following the arrest of the PTI president on May 9.
The military leadership, however, has stated its intention to take severe measures against the perpetrators and those who enable and abet them. The head of the military’s public relations office (ISPR) has warned that serious consequences will follow any attempt to derail the proceedings.
It will be intriguing to see how the bench reacts to the news conference, according to some experts. If the bench does not reach a resolution today [Tuesday], the trial of the suspects may be put on hold until the ruling is made.
The petitioners’ lawyers might try to get the Supreme Court to pay attention to the ISPR press conference because it concerns a case that’s now before the court. The current bench, however, may refrain from such coercive measures, as its members are likely preoccupied with issuing rules to guarantee a fair trial for civilians accused of attacking military sites.
The judges’ comments reveal their displeasure with the anti-terrorism court’s (ATC) practise of transferring suspects to the military without issuing a formal speaking order.
Counsel for one of the petitioners argues that guidelines are risky because they give legitimacy to military court rulings without first assessing vires of relevant provisions.
Mansoor Awan, Pakistan’s Attorney General, will have to provide a declaration about the measures the civilian administration has done to guarantee a fair trial and due process in the military tribunals. Both are necessary for the verdicts of military courts to be recognised in domestic and international legal systems.
However, according to a high-ranking government official, the Supreme Court might allow for broader review of military court rulings by the superior courts.
Since the supreme court exercised its suo motu powers to hold the general elections in two provinces, there has been open mistrust between “powerful circles” and one branch of the court.
Only a unanimous Supreme Court can handle the current crisis, but disagreements among the court’s most senior judges are preventing that from happening.
On Monday, CJP Bandial made it clear that the court has been patient despite the government’s refusal to carry out its ruling, but that the court must now reverse course.
This finding demonstrates that the CJP may give intimidating directives to government officials. However, if there is widespread discord inside the organisation, such an order cannot be carried out.
A lawyer who is on good terms with the CJP said that the court should rule that such petitions are not maintainable and direct the petitioners to the higher courts.
Justice Bandial will no longer preside over the Supreme Court if and when this matter returns there. Furthermore, he opined that the CJP should not rush to a resolution of the case. But another attorney has warned that the chief justice will lose the backing of pro-PTI lawyers if such an order is issued.
On Monday, the CJP challenged the moral authority of the “sticks’ people for the first time. However, since the Panama Papers case, judicial politics have also weakened the SC’s moral authority.
One of the petitioners, former CJP Jawad S. Khawaja, has ties to Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, who has thus recused himself from the bench.
A debate has begun about the CJP’s upcoming judgement in a case involving the establishment of an investigation committee to investigate certain audio leaks. The Supreme Court is currently deliberating a request from the government to recuse the Chief Justice for similar reasons.
Justice Shah should not have recused himself, according to several PTI attorneys. They call this shift in the law an example of judicial politics. Ex-AAG Tariq Mahmood Khokhar has stated that the CJP’s problems are more intricate and multifaceted than previously thought.
A longtime observer of the judiciary, Khakhar said that a nine-member bench would be unable to “placate the implacable.”
The CJP’s pleadings and tears have gone unheard. The SC is disregarded without consequence. He attributed such words to the English poet TS Eliot: “For us, there is just the trying. The rest of it has nothing to do with us.
Frankenstein’s monster is responsible for the downfall of its creator. He continued, “Today’s recusal fits neatly into the previous recusals,” whether or not that was his intention.
The CJP and his SC played a crucial role in destabilising parliamentary democracy, weakening parliamentary opposition, and changing the outcome of general elections.
“A ragtag government was forced upon the nation, which is now affecting the personal humiliation of the CJP and questioning the relevance as well as the legitimacy of his SC,” he said.
Some experts speculate that the government may play a new card today in an effort to stymie or postpone the bench’s proceedings.
