Maps
Magazine

LEGAL

Ex-CJP’s Lawyer Opposes Military Trials, Terms Proceedings Unfair
Former CJP's lawyer argues against military trials, emphasizing the need for fair and impartial proceedings. Justice Rizvi questions how justice will be served for fallen soldiers if key sections of the Pakistan Army Act are deemed unconstitutional.
ND
by News Desk
2025-02-01
Ex-CJP’s Lawyer Opposes Military Trials, Terms Proceedings Unfair

Islamabad: In a pivotal hearing on Friday, the counsel for former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Jawwad S. Khawaja challenged the legality of military trials for civilians involved in the May 9 riots, arguing that such proceedings violate constitutional rights.

Khawaja Ahmad Hosain, representing the ex-CJP, contended before a seven-member Constitutional Bench that the Pakistan Army, being an affected party in the case, cannot ensure a fair trial. “In a court-martial, the army acts as prosecutor, judge, and jury, making the process inherently biased,” he asserted.

The counsel highlighted that Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees an absolute and undiluted right to due process and a fair trial, without any qualifications. He maintained that subjecting civilians to military trials contradicts this fundamental right.

Justice Rizvi’s Concerns

Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi raised concerns about how military personnel, who sacrifice their lives defending the nation, would receive justice if key sections of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) 1952 were deemed unconstitutional.

“Recently, five army personnel lost their lives, and 13 embraced martyrdom in separate terrorist attacks. How can terrorism cases be effectively prosecuted in Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) when witnesses are difficult to secure?” Justice Rizvi questioned.

Civilian Court Convictions Best for Credibility

Hosain responded by citing the 1999 Sheikh Liaquat Hussain judgment, where former CJP Ajmal Mian emphasized that convicting terrorists in civilian courts ensures greater credibility and transparency.

However, Justice Rizvi argued that the current wave of terrorism poses a nationwide threat, with at least two provinces under siege.

Justice Mandokhail’s Observation

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail underscored the principle of justice, stating, “Acquitting 100 offenders is preferable to sentencing one innocent.” He highlighted the grave injustice of punishing an innocent person.

The judge recounted a harrowing experience where six Balochistan High Court judges narrowly escaped an explosive attack. He noted that Pakistan ranks 130 globally for rule of law and justice, often acquitting suspects due to a lack of witnesses.

Right to Fair Trial

Hosain emphasized that the right to a fair trial must be upheld, referencing an ISPR press release claiming "irrefutable evidence" of coordinated attacks on army installations during the May 9 incidents.

Given this determination by senior army officials, Hosain expressed doubts about junior officers' ability to deliver unbiased judgments during court-martial proceedings.

Kulbhushan Jadhav's Status

When asked about the implications of the Oct 23, 2023 judgment on Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, Hosain clarified that his status remains unchanged as the ruling does not affect concluded or pending court-martial cases.

The counsel also criticized the lack of guaranteed legal representation in military courts, arguing that granting counsel at the discretion of military authorities does not ensure a fair trial.

As the debate continues, the Supreme Court's verdict will be crucial in shaping the future of military trials and the upholding of constitutional rights in Pakistan.
Tagged:

SupremeCourt

May9Riots
Share News: