If institution is complainant, it cannot conduct trial, SC judge observes in military trial case
Listen to article
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has resumed hearings on a high-profile case that has challenged the legality of trying civilians in military courts, with judges raising serious concerns over due process and judicial independence.
A seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing petitions against the military trials of civilians arrested after violent protests.
Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Shahid Bilal were also part of the bench.
Justice Mandokhail questioned how an institution that has acted as a complainant can also preside over the trial. 'How can an institution that has itself been the complainant also hear the case?' he remarked. 'Has the federation not trusted its own civilian judiciary?'
The court focused on whether those tried in military courts have been granted the constitutional right to appeal and fair trial. 'We have been asking about the right to appeal because it is a fundamental right,' Justice Mandokhail noted.
Justice Hilali pointed out how criticism intensifies when civilian courts delay proceedings. 'If a judge goes on leave, it becomes a national issue that trials are delayed,' she has said, highlighting a perceived double standard.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the bench and defended the military court process. He stated that the court-martial system follows a defined legal structure, and any death sentence is not implemented until appeals have been exhausted. 'The entire procedure is already on record with the court,' he said.
Justice Mazhar said there should not be any problem in allowing fair trials. 'If we provide the right to fair trial, what is the issue?' he asked.
The bench also revisited options previously discussed by a full court after the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
Justice Mandokhail asked the attorney general to explain which of those three options the government has pursued.
The attorney general said he will respond after petitioner Khawaja Haris concludes his arguments. The court adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC declares PTI ineligible for reserved seats
ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court with the majority of seven set aside the impugned judgment dated 12th July 2024, on the reserved seats of women and non-Muslims. The 10-member bench on Friday after hearing the arguments of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel, Attorney General for Pakistan, and the lawyer of women parliamentarians, elected on the tickets of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) on reserved seats, passed a short order, the detailed reasoning would be announced later. Initially, a 13-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, was constituted for the hearing of review petitions. On the first hearing, held on May 6, 2025, 11 judges of 13-member bench accepting the review petitions issued notices to the respondents. However, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi rejected the petitions, and wrote separate note, while Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, at the verge of conclusion recused from the bench for certain reasons. According to the short order, majority of seven judges – Justice Amin, Justice Musarrat, Justice Naeem, Justice Shahid, Justice Hashim, Justice Aamer and Justice Baqar Najafi – allowed all Civil Review Petitions, and set aside the impugned majority judgment dated 12.07.2024, as a consequence thereof, Civil Appeal Nos 333 of 2024 and 334 of 2024 filed by the SIC are dismissed and the judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar is restored. The order further stated that Justice Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions and maintained his original order with regard to 39 seats, but reviewed the majority judgment to the extent of 41 seats. Whereas Justice Muhammad and Justice Azhar also reviewed the judgment and allowed the review petitions with the rider that since the factual controversy or disputed questions of facts neither could be resolved by the Peshawar High Court nor this Court in original or review jurisdiction; therefore, directions are issued to the ECP to examine and consider the nomination papers/ declaration and other relevant documents of all 80 returned candidates by means of de novo exercise with regard to their affiliation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules for allocation of reserve seats within 15 days from receiving the copy of this Short Order. A Full Court of 13 judges on July 12, 24, delivered five separate short orders. Eight judges – Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan declared that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, and to 41 independents granted 15 days' time to decide on joining the PTI. Former Chief Justice Qazi and Justice Mandokhel in their order also accepted 39 candidates of the PTI, but considered 41 as independents. Justice Yahya Afridi though recognized PTI as political party, had directed the ECP to decide the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to political parties in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies. On the other hand, Justice Amin, and Justice Naeem had rejected the SIC appeal against the PHC verdict. Onset of the proceedings, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar addressing Hamid Khan, lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council, said that he had good relation with him. 'However, you raised objections on the bench yesterday (Thursday).' He then read his written statement, which stated; 'In the entire proceeding of this case all the counsels including Faial Siddiqui, Salman Akram Raja unequivocally expressed confidence in the bench. However, yesterday Hamid Khan during the course of his arguments raised objections on the bench, especially targeting the inclusion of the judges, including me, who were appointed judges of the apex court subsequent to the 26th Amendment, questioned the propriety of our participation in the adjudication of this case.' He stated: 'Dignity and impartiality of the Court remained unchallenged throughout these proceedings, and there was broad consensus among all the parties, thus reflected faith in the bench. Judicial propriety and the appearance of impartiality remain paramount in maintaining the public confidence in the judiciary. 'In light of the objection raised and in deference to the principle of judicial propriety, irrespective of its merit, and the timing of the assertion I consider it appropriate to rescue myself from the hearing of this case. The recusal is made not from the admission or disqualification, but to uphold the dignity of the institution and integrity and objectivity of these proceedings, I thereby recused myself from the bench.' When Justice Salahuddin Panhwar finished his statement, Hamid Khan said: 'Greatly appreciated.' However, Justice Amin responded; 'This is not the matter of appreciation', adding: 'this is because of your conduct.' While addressing Hamid Khan, the judge further said that you are the third counsel of the same party, whom we gave an opportunity to argue in this case. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said; 'In a case two counsels from the same party are never allowed, but we respected you as a senior counsel; therefore, provided you opportunity to argue the case; otherwise you were not entitled,' adding; 'You have misused it.' After the recusal of Justice Salahuddin the members of the bench left the courtroom, and approximately 30 minutes later the 10-judge bench resumed the hearing. Hamid Khan emphasized that the review petitions should be heard by the same numerical strength bench that had delivered the judgment. He then referred the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a reference was filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council. He submitted that a 10-member bench was hearing the review against the SC judgment by the 10 judges. However, in the middle of the hearings Justice Faisal Arab retired the then chief justice; therefore, included another judge (Justice Amin) in the bench hearing the review petitions of Justice Faez. Hamid then contended that under Article 191A of the constitution the constitutional benches are constituted by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which is dominated by the executive members. Justice Mandokhail told that this arrangement was due to 26th Amendment. He then asked from the SIC council do you accept the 26th Amendment? Then he told him to move on his next point. Hamid reacted; 'Do you stop me from arguing my case'. Justice Mandokhail told him that 'you have 10 minutes to make your argument; otherwise, sit down.' Hamid replied: 'You are angry, do not hear the case just now.' The conversation continued in a confrontational manner, with Justice Mandokhail telling him to sit down if he does not want to present his arguments. 'I know how to do my job, you should be careful with your words,' Justice Mandokhail said. 'I have skipped my mother's funeral to be here and you are joking.' He said the bench would not hear anything irrelevant and had already heard enough. 'We consider you a good lawyer, but what you are doing right now is not the job of a professional lawyer,' he added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Japan's First Death Sentence in Three Years: 'Twitter Killer' Hanged
Japan's Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki speaks at a news conference about the execution of a man who killed nine people after contacting them on social media, in Tokyo, Japan (Photo: Reuters) Japan executed on Friday a man who killed nine people after contacting them on social media, the first use of capital punishment in the country in nearly three years. Takahiro Shiraishi had been sentenced to death for his 2017 strangling and dismembering of eight women and one man in his apartment in Zama city in Kanagawa near Tokyo. He was dubbed the "Twitter killer" as he contacted victims via the social media platform. Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki, who authorised Shiraishi's hanging, said he made the decision after careful examination, taking into account the convict's "extremely selfish" motive for crimes that "caused great shock andunrest to society." It followed the execution in July 2022 of a man who went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo's shopping district Akihabara in 2008. It was also the first time a death penalty was carried out since Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's government was inaugurated last October. In September last year, a Japanese court acquitted Iwao Hakamada, who had spent the world's longest time on death row after a wrongful conviction for crimes committed nearly 60 years ago. Capital punishment is carried out by hanging in Japan and prisoners are notified of their execution hours before it is carried out, which has long been decried by human rights groups for the stress it puts on death-row prisoners. "It is not appropriate to abolish the death penalty while these violent crimes are still being committed," Suzuki told a press conference. There are currently 105 death row inmates in Japan, he added.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar steps down from bench in reserved seats case
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar recused himself on Friday from the bench hearing the reserved seats case. An 11-member constitiutional bench (CB) led by Justice Aminuddin Khan is currently hearing the case. In its short order on July 12, 2024, eight out of 13 judges concluded that 39 out of 80 MNAs on the list were elected candidates of the PTI, positioning it as the largest party in the National Assembly. However, the National Assembly has not yet implemented the ruling, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has raised several objections. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the ECP have submitted review petitions challenging the Supreme Court's July 12 decision from last year. The hearing was briefly adjourned for 10 minutes, but the bench has since resumed proceedings. The decision comes after objections were raised regarding his participation in the case. Justice Panhwar, part of an 11-member bench, opted to step down from the case on the grounds of preserving the court's dignity. In his remarks, he mentioned that his past association with the case's key players, including lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Salman Akram Raja, led to the objections. He emphasised that his recusal was necessary to protect the institution's integrity. But, he clarified, that it should not be seen as an admission of the objections' validity. The decision was met with mixed reactions in the courtroom. Advocate Hamid Khan lauded Justice Panhwar's step, but Justice Aminuddin Khan said that the situation stemmed from the conduct of the involved parties. Justice Jamal Mandokhail echoed this sentiment, highlighting that despite the controversy, Justice Panhwar was given a chance to speak even when two lawyers from the same party are generally not allowed to argue the case. On Thursday, the CB turned down the request by one of PTI's counsels to defer the hearing of the reserved seats case till August, noting that the bench intended to hear the case daily. Earlier, PTI's counsel advocate Salman Akram Raja resumed his arguments in support of the July 12, 2024, majority order of a full SC bench. He referred to the SC judgment in the Sindh High Court Bar case, which, he said, serves as an example of how the SC can intervene for the restoration of the Constitution. Read: CB refuses to adjourn reserved seats case till Aug "After the emergency imposed on November 3, 2007, several actions were taken, but the Supreme Court declared that emergency unconstitutional, and all actions taken in its aftermath were also annulled." "The court had ruled that the judges appointed after the emergency held no legitimate status, and their removal of sitting judges was also declared unlawful; the removed judges were reinstated." During the hearing, Raja also referred to the allocation of reserved seats in the general elections of 2013, 2018 and 2024. He stated that the record shows that in previous elections, the political party that won general seats received reserved seats in roughly the same proportion. "However, the situation is different in the recent general elections. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a party [PTI] that secured 83% of the general seats was allotted zero reserved seats," he said. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Raja as to how the apex court can stop any politician from contesting elections independently. "Suppose Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Bilawal Bhutto, or Maulana Fazlur Rehman, being major party leaders, decide to contest independently, how can we prevent them?" he asked. Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that losing an election symbol does not mean the political party's registration is canceled. PTI candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), but the SIC was not present in parliament, she said. Justice Mandokhail noted that Raja cited the SHC Bar Association case, but in that case, the facts were undisputed. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi commented that in the 1985 non-party based elections, a political party called itself the 'Awam Dost' party. "Did you introduce any such term [for the PTI for the polls]?" asked Justice Rizvi. The lawyer responded that the PTI introduced the term "Kaptaan ka Sipahi". Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there seemed to be a lack of coordination within the PTI. Justice Mandokhail added that it appeared that the 39 members of the Assembly who openly declared their affiliation with the PTI were more sensible." "Either they were more sensible or they had a higher tolerance for pressure," added Justice Hilali. Recalling past political events, SIC's counsel Hamid Khan said the decision in the PTI intra-party election case was announced on the very last day for the allotment of election symbols. "It was a Saturday, a holiday, but the case was heard until 11pm that night. Our candidates kept waiting, wondering what the verdict would be. At midnight, our election symbol was taken away from us, and the deadline for symbol allotment passed. After that, where did we stand? He said the ECP gave more time to the ANP even though the ANP had not even held any elections "We had conducted elections, but the ECP did not accept them. We urged it to fine us, if needed, but it stripped us of our election symbol. On the same day, the ANP and the PTI were treated differently," he said. Justice Mazhar responded that the ANP was being given an opportunity for the first time, while the PTI had already been given several years. "Your party constitution was made more foolproof; we can even say it's better than others," he noted Hamid Khan remarked that it seemed the PTI was punished for drafting a better constitution. The CB also dismissed Hamid Khan's request to defer the case till August. The court will resume hearing at 9.30am today. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023, order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its misinterpretation by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the SIC in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in SC.
