ISLAMABAD: The Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), Mansoor Awan, has been given a directive by the Supreme Court to confer with the appropriate authorities about granting the right of appeal to people who are currently being tried in military courts under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. These people are suspected of damaging military facilities and memorials on May 9.
A six-member enlarged bench of the Supreme Court commenced hearing the petitions contesting the court martial of civilians and gave the AGP two days to get the required instructions from the appropriate authorities. The court stressed how crucial it is to take into account the right of appeal for civilians subjected to military trials.
Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Awan gave an in-depth explanation of the circumstances surrounding Imran Khan’s detention on May 9 at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) grounds during a session presided over by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial.In response to Imran’s detention, a number of attacks took place against various military locations between 3pm and 7pm on May 9, according to AGP Awan. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) facility in Mianwali was one of these locations, along with the Lahore Corps Commander House and army posts in Sialkot, Rawalpindi, Bannu, and Mianwali.
At the time of the attack, there were Mirage fighter jets stationed at the PAF facility. Additionally, vandals attacked Hamza Camp, the Rawalpindi office of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Signal Mess, the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, and the National Institute of Heart Diseases at Chaklala.
The AGP said that criminals were armed when they stormed the ISI base in Faisalabad.
“Only in Punjab was this many incidents reported. Around 250 individuals were hurt during these attacks, including 198 members of the security forces. These attacks were planned and executed methodically rather than on the spur of the moment. A loss of Rs2.5 billion was caused by these attacks, he said.
He claimed that unlike policemen, army personnel are not prepared to handle rioting. “In the face of escalating violence, the army exercised restraint rather than using firearms against the criminals.”
The AGP asked the CJP to convene a full court to consider the petitions once more.
The CJP stated that he did not recollect ever witnessing such an attack on military facilities. He claimed that the petitioners were more worried about their right to a fair trial than they were about the accused’s freedom or impunity.
If the accused may be given a real right to appeal based on law and facts, Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the AGP. The remedy offered against rulings by military courts, according to CJP Bandial, is “very limited”.
He also brought up the issue of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian spy who on April 10, 2017, was found guilty of inciting terrorism in Pakistan and given the death penalty by a military court there.
The CJP stated that a statute allowing Jadhav to appeal his military court sentence was later passed by parliament on November 17, 2021.
CJP Bandial stated that the issue of the right to appeal must be addressed and that it should be protected. “Please also let us know the maximum penalty that will be imposed in the event of a conviction. The judgment rendered by the military tribunals must also have a thorough justification, he continued.
But the AGP asked the bench to give guidance in this area. “The court should issue instructions regarding giving the accused the right to appeal and to provide reasoning in the military courts’ verdicts,” he said.
But Justice Yahya Afridi questioned the AGP, asking him why he wanted the judiciary to pass laws. The parliament could pass such legislation. Why are you asking the court for such legislation?
Justice Ayesha Malik voiced grave concerns regarding the trial procedure in military courts. She stated that “nobody knows where the accused persons are,” and added that due process was not followed.
“It is a matter of citizens’ fundamental rights and due process,” she said. The court postponed till Friday (July 21), ordering the AGP to obtain instructions regarding the accused persons’ right to appeal.
