'Civilians' court martials unconstitutional'
Fateh Khan, Fazal Ghaffar and Tajir Gul had been convicted of carrying our terror attacks in the country by military courts. CREATIVE: AAMIR KHAN
Listen to article
Supreme Court Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan on Friday released a dissenting opinion in the case concerning the trial of civilians in military courts, declaring such court-martials unconstitutional.
The 35-page minority decision firmly states that the jurisdiction of court-martials was exclusively limited to military personnel and cannot be extended to ordinary civilians.
The judges ruled that the application of military jurisdiction to civilians was unconstitutional.
The dissenting note critically examines the broader assumption that civil courts are incapable of dealing with high-profile terrorism cases, suggesting instead that this narrative was misleading.
It observes that it has generally been portrayed that civil courts have failed to handle grave offences such as terrorism, and that military courts are the only remedy, but the reality is quite the opposite.
Recalling past precedent, the judges noted that military courts were temporarily authorised in 2015 to hear certain terrorism-related cases. However, the experiment failed to eliminate terrorism, partly because military officers lack the judicial experience required to adjudicate complex criminal matters.
The decision observes that globally, terrorism cases are not tried in military courts. It argues that criticism of the criminal justice system is misplaced and notes that acquittals in civil courts often result from poor investigation, weak witnesses, or politically charged cases, not from judicial incompetence.
It pointed out that according to Article 25 of the Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The principle of equal protection ensures that all citizens are treated alike under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, political affiliation, action or other classifications.
"This is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring that the law applies equally and no one is above the law. Treating citizens differently, without a reasonable classification amount to discrimination."
"This happens when two equally placed persons or groups of people are treated differently. Discriminating individuals in legal proceedings on account of their acts or nature of an offence, is a violation of the principle of equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law," it further noted.
"The security of life and liberty of a person is a fundamental right, to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees and ensures that citizens have the right for protection from harm, physical danger, potential risks and threats to their life, unjust or illegal detention or imprisonment and of any action that could take away their freedom or life, in all circumstances," the dissenting note read.
It further observed that an independent judiciary can act as a check on the government's power to ensure the security of life and liberty of citizens. The criminal justice system entails a set of laws and principles that provide a procedure, aim to protect lthe ife and liberty of citizens, and to ensure order in society.
Article 10 of the Constitution ensures safeguards as to the arrest and detention of a person, with a right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice. It is also made sure that no person shall be detained in custody beyond a period of twenty-four hours without the authority of a magistrate.
"The courts martial established under the MJS, consisting of executive, are not independent and impartial. They do not provide the constitutional protection of security of life and liberty of a person, and safeguard as to his arrest and detention. While detained in military custody, the provisions of jail manual are not applicable to the persons accused of military crime. Courts' martial proceedings are in-camera."
It further noted that the right of the accused to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice, guaranteed by the Constitution, was subject to the approval of the Chief of the Army Staff or the convening officer, as provided by rule 82 of the Pakistan Army Act, Rules 1954.
"This is a fundamental right of a person under sub-Article (1) of Article 10 of the Constitution, which cannot be made conditional. The custody of accused of offence under clause (d) and the procedure adopted by the courts martial are inconsistent with, takes away and abridge their fundamental rights, which is violative of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution."
The note stated that the right to fair trial and due process is universally accepted as a fundamental right, therefore, the legislature, realising its importance and necessity, inserted Article 10A in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010.
"Fair trial and due process help limiting abuse by Governments and State authorities and ensure integrity and fairness of the legal system. Due process has a requirement that the legal matter pertaining to civil rights and obligations and a criminal charge against a citizen be resolved according to law, established rules and principles, on the basis of evidence presented."
The dissent also criticises both the federal and provincial governments, stating that instead of investing in and improving the civil justice system, they opted for court-martials of civilians, a move that exceeds constitutional boundaries.
The judges observed that the punishments handed down to civilians involved in the May 9, 2023, events by military courts were beyond their jurisdiction and therefore null and void.
The note concludes by reiterating that the delivery of justice falls within the constitutional domain of the civilian judiciary.
The rule of law demands that every citizen be afforded the right to a fair trial, the decision states.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Jamaat-e-Islami regains political status after Bangladesh top court reverses ban
Listen to article Bangladesh's Supreme Court has reinstated the political registration of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, overturning a 2013 High Court ruling that had barred the country's largest religious party from participating in elections for over a decade. The ruling, issued on Sunday by a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, directed the Election Commission to immediately restore Jamaat's registration and resolve all outstanding matters, including the allocation of its election symbol. Jamaat had lost its legal status under the premiership of Sheikh Hasina, who was removed from power following mass protests in August 2024 and subsequently went into exile in India. In her final months in office, Hasina also imposed an executive ban on the party in August 2023. READ: Protests grip Bangladesh The transitional government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, which assumed office after Hasina's ouster, had revoked that executive order, setting the stage for Sunday's legal reversal. 'With the verdict, a multiparty democracy and inclusive election has been acknowledged,' said Jamaat's lawyer, Mohammad Shishir Manir, speaking outside the court. He added that the 2013 decision had been politically motivated and that the new ruling reflected judicial fairness. The verdict follows the Supreme Court's May 27 decision to overturn the conviction of senior Jamaat leader A.T.M. Azharul Islam, who had been sentenced to death in 2014 for alleged war crimes during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence. Islam was released on May 28 after spending over a decade in prison. READ: Bangladesh begins first trial of Sheikh Hasina aides Jamaat-e-Islami had supported Pakistan during the 1971 war, a stance that remains controversial in Bangladesh. The party was long opposed by the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina and her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's founding leader. The ruling opens the way for Jamaat to contest in the upcoming 13th parliamentary elections, expected later this year. In a broader shift, the Awami League itself was banned by the interim government in May pending trial over its alleged role in suppressing last year's anti-quota protests that led to Hasina's removal. READ MORE: Hasina blamed for BD deadly crackdown
Business Recorder
20 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. US says it will start revoking visas for Chinese students 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
'Civilians' court martials unconstitutional'
Fateh Khan, Fazal Ghaffar and Tajir Gul had been convicted of carrying our terror attacks in the country by military courts. CREATIVE: AAMIR KHAN Listen to article Supreme Court Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan on Friday released a dissenting opinion in the case concerning the trial of civilians in military courts, declaring such court-martials unconstitutional. The 35-page minority decision firmly states that the jurisdiction of court-martials was exclusively limited to military personnel and cannot be extended to ordinary civilians. The judges ruled that the application of military jurisdiction to civilians was unconstitutional. The dissenting note critically examines the broader assumption that civil courts are incapable of dealing with high-profile terrorism cases, suggesting instead that this narrative was misleading. It observes that it has generally been portrayed that civil courts have failed to handle grave offences such as terrorism, and that military courts are the only remedy, but the reality is quite the opposite. Recalling past precedent, the judges noted that military courts were temporarily authorised in 2015 to hear certain terrorism-related cases. However, the experiment failed to eliminate terrorism, partly because military officers lack the judicial experience required to adjudicate complex criminal matters. The decision observes that globally, terrorism cases are not tried in military courts. It argues that criticism of the criminal justice system is misplaced and notes that acquittals in civil courts often result from poor investigation, weak witnesses, or politically charged cases, not from judicial incompetence. It pointed out that according to Article 25 of the Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. The principle of equal protection ensures that all citizens are treated alike under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, political affiliation, action or other classifications. "This is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring that the law applies equally and no one is above the law. Treating citizens differently, without a reasonable classification amount to discrimination." "This happens when two equally placed persons or groups of people are treated differently. Discriminating individuals in legal proceedings on account of their acts or nature of an offence, is a violation of the principle of equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law," it further noted. "The security of life and liberty of a person is a fundamental right, to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees and ensures that citizens have the right for protection from harm, physical danger, potential risks and threats to their life, unjust or illegal detention or imprisonment and of any action that could take away their freedom or life, in all circumstances," the dissenting note read. It further observed that an independent judiciary can act as a check on the government's power to ensure the security of life and liberty of citizens. The criminal justice system entails a set of laws and principles that provide a procedure, aim to protect lthe ife and liberty of citizens, and to ensure order in society. Article 10 of the Constitution ensures safeguards as to the arrest and detention of a person, with a right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice. It is also made sure that no person shall be detained in custody beyond a period of twenty-four hours without the authority of a magistrate. "The courts martial established under the MJS, consisting of executive, are not independent and impartial. They do not provide the constitutional protection of security of life and liberty of a person, and safeguard as to his arrest and detention. While detained in military custody, the provisions of jail manual are not applicable to the persons accused of military crime. Courts' martial proceedings are in-camera." It further noted that the right of the accused to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his own choice, guaranteed by the Constitution, was subject to the approval of the Chief of the Army Staff or the convening officer, as provided by rule 82 of the Pakistan Army Act, Rules 1954. "This is a fundamental right of a person under sub-Article (1) of Article 10 of the Constitution, which cannot be made conditional. The custody of accused of offence under clause (d) and the procedure adopted by the courts martial are inconsistent with, takes away and abridge their fundamental rights, which is violative of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution." The note stated that the right to fair trial and due process is universally accepted as a fundamental right, therefore, the legislature, realising its importance and necessity, inserted Article 10A in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. "Fair trial and due process help limiting abuse by Governments and State authorities and ensure integrity and fairness of the legal system. Due process has a requirement that the legal matter pertaining to civil rights and obligations and a criminal charge against a citizen be resolved according to law, established rules and principles, on the basis of evidence presented." The dissent also criticises both the federal and provincial governments, stating that instead of investing in and improving the civil justice system, they opted for court-martials of civilians, a move that exceeds constitutional boundaries. The judges observed that the punishments handed down to civilians involved in the May 9, 2023, events by military courts were beyond their jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The note concludes by reiterating that the delivery of justice falls within the constitutional domain of the civilian judiciary. The rule of law demands that every citizen be afforded the right to a fair trial, the decision states.
