Latest news with #FaisalSiddiqui
Business Recorder
17-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Alkhidmat's Bano Qabil, Fossphorus ink MoU
KARACHI: Alkhidmat Karachi's Bano Qabil IT program and Fossphorus, a leading IT company, have signed MoU to establish a Satellite Incubation Center aimed at empowering youth with advanced IT skills. The signing ceremony, attended by Alkhidmat Karachi CEO Naveed Ali Baig, Bano Qabil Director Farooq Kamalani, Head of Incubation Raja Haris, and Fossphorus Managing Partner Faisal Siddiqui, marked a significant step in expanding opportunities for young people. Naveed Ali Baig highlighted that the Bano Qabil program already supports youth lacking resources by providing access to computers and expert supervision to enhance industry-specific skills and secure employment. The new Satellite Incubation Center will further improve facilities and outreach. Faisal Siddiqui emphasized Fossphorus' expertise in integrating creativity and technology, noting that the collaboration will offer youth practical, industry-relevant experience and modern educational opportunities. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'It doesn't matter where a trial takes place'
A member of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court has noted that if someone has committed a crime, it makes no difference whether his trial is conducted in a civilian court or a military court. On Tuesday, a seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed hearing the intra-court appeals filed by the government against an earlier Supreme Court order declaring trials of May 9 rioters in military court illegal. During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that those who commit a crime should be punished no matter who they are. "What difference does it make whether a trial takes place here [in a civilian court] or there [in a military court]?" he asked. The lawyer for civil society, Faisal Siddiqi, took exception to the observation stating that there is a huge difference between a trial taking place in a civilian court and the one taking place in a military court. "One of them is a fair trial; the other one is not," he argued. Justice Mandokhail noted that all the forums are available under the law and all are respectable. Faisal Siddiqui stated that in the FB Ali case verdict, the Supreme Court had said that where the defense of Pakistan is at risk, civilians can be tried in military courts. However, the cases related to the May 9, 2023 incidents involve vandalism. Earlier, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the number of individuals released from military courts. Faisal Siddiqui stated that there were a total of 105 accused, out of which 20 had been released. The additional attorney general clarified that initially, 20 individuals were released, followed by another 19, leaving 66 accused still in jail. Faisal Siddiqui further remarked that in the United States, it is customary to allow both parties the right to propose a judgment at the conclusion of arguments. He added that if the argument is that a court-martial must take place, then there are also alternatives available. After Siddiqui concluded his arguments, Abid Zuberi, the lawyer representing former Supreme Court Bar officials, argued that the attorney-general for Pakistan had assured that the right to a fair trial would be upheld. The CB will resume hearing the case at 9:30am today. A day earlier, the CB had asked as to what would be the status of the proceedings of the military courts which are holding trials of dozens of May 9 rioters if the cases against them are transferred to ATCs. During the arguments, Faisal Siddiqi had noted that if his argument was accepted, the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 would remain intact but the trial of May 9 accused would become null and void. "If the trials are annulled, the cases which military courts have not yet decided will be transferred to the ATCs, while cases where sentences have already been executed will be considered 'past and closed transactions'," Siddiqui told the bench.
Express Tribune
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
'What if May 9 trials are moved to ATCs?'
'What if May 9 trials are moved to ATCs?' The constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court has questioned the status of military court proceedings against May 9 rioters if their cases are transferred to anti-terrorism courts (ATCs). A seven-member CB resumed hearing the government's intra-court appeals against the SC's earlier order annulling the trial of civilians in military courts. Representing civil society petitioners, lawyer Faisal Siddiqi argued that if the court accepted his stance, the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, would remain intact, but the trials of May 9 accused would be nullified. He explained that undecided cases would move to ATCs, while cases where sentences had already been executed would be considered "past and closed transactions" Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked whether ATCs would conduct fresh trials or rely on military court evidence. CB head Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned whether declaring military court verdicts "past and closed" would validate the trials. In response, Faisal Siddiqui stated that the military trial was challenged in the Supreme Court due to the application of Article 245 of the Constitution. Article 245 outlines the role of the Armed Forces in defending the country and assisting civil authorities. Justice Aminuddin Khan pointed out Article 245 was not in effect on May 9, 2023. It was invoked when the petitions were filed. Earlier, Faisal Siddiqui stated that the question was not how the 105 accused individuals were selected for military trial, but rather whether the law permitted it. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the issue of handing over the accused was a matter of record. He asked if the client of Siddiqi challenged Section 94 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The lawyer responded that at the time of handing over the accused, their crimes had not been determined. "We have also challenged the unlimited discretionary powers under Section 94 of the Act," he added. Section 94 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 states that when a criminal court and a court martial have jurisdiction in respect of a civil offence, it shall be in the discretion of the prescribed officer to decide before which court the proceedings shall be instituted. "If that officer decides that they shall be instituted before a court martial, [it shall be in the discretion of the prescribed officer] to direct that the accused person shall be detained in military custody," it states. The lawyer argued that the officer who decided to transfer the cases against the accused to military courts had unlimited authority, whereas even the prime minister's powers are not unlimited. "The authority regarding transfer of accused persons should be structured," he said. Justice Hassan Rizvi inquired whether the police investigation was slower than the military's and whether any material evidence was available at the time of the transfer. Faisal Siddiqui replied that the availability of material evidence was not the issue. The root of the problem, according to him, was the unlimited power to transfer accused individuals. The commanding officer requests the transfer under Section 94, he added. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether the ATCs had the authority to reject the transfer request made by commanding officers. The lawyer said the ATCs indeed had the power to reject such a request. Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that this defense could have been adopted by the accused in the ATC or during an appeal. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the ATC had not even issued notices to the accused and had decided on the matter solely based on the commanding officer's request. Justice Mandokhail stated that Section 94 applies to those who fall under the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. Once the ATC made its decision, the accused became subject to the Act as the ATC had the power to reject the commanding officer's request, he added. Siddiqui argued that the decision to court-martial should have been made before handing over the accused. If no decision for a court-martial had been taken, then how could the transfer of accused individuals be justified, he asked. Justice Hassan Rizvi asked whether the commanding officer's request provided reasons for the transfer. The lawyer responded that no reasons were mentioned in the request. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, however, disagreed with the claim stating that the request did include reasons, specifying that the accused were charged under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Justice Mandokhail observed that the procedure for filing a complaint under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 was clearly outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). "Such a request should be submitted to a magistrate, who would record statements and decide whether an investigation was warranted," he added. Faisal Siddiqui argued that such a request could also be filed in the form of an FIR. He said it was established that only the federal government could file a complaint under the Official Secrets Act, and a private individual could not do so. "Complaints under the Official Secrets Act could also be made under Army Rules," he said. Justice Mandokhail noted that under Army Rules, an investigation must take place first but even for an investigation to begin, there must be a formal complaint. He also questioned whether the executive's discretion still remained after Article 175. "Article 175 eliminates the issue of discretionary power altogether," he said. Article 175 of the Constitution deals with the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. It emphasizes that the judiciary must function independently and not be influenced by the executive branch. The CB will resume hearing the case today.
Express Tribune
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB judge questions identical wording in ATC rulings
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the wording in the verdicts of Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) in Lahore and Islamabad regarding the transfer of May 9 accused to military custody was identical. This prompted Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel to remark that it seems ATC judges were weak in English. A seven-member Constitutional Bench led by Justice Amin ud-Din Khan heard intra-court appeals challenging the trial of civilians in military court. At the outset of the hearing, Civil Society lawyer Faisal Siddiqui argued that commanding officers had submitted requests to transfer the May 9 accused for military trial. He noted that the request began with a sentence that it was an official secret case as per initial investigation, said Faisal Siddiqui. "This is an admission by the commanding officer that the investigation was incomplete," Siddiqui asserted. He further argued that the ATC's reasoning for transferring the accused to military custody fare absurd. He said the ATC administrative judge issued order for handing over of accused's custody for military trials. The ATC declared the accused guilty before completion of the investigation. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the use of words in the verdict of Anti-Terrorism Courts Lahore and Islamabad was identical. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel added it seems the judges of Anti-Terrorism Courts were weak in English. Faisal Siddiqui said the court can hand over the custody of the accused to military but not the administrative judge. The military can take over the custody of military officials involved in murder and other crimes from civil court under Army Act Section 59 (1). Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday.
