Justice Rizvi asks if May 9 offences more serious than terrorism incidents – Pakistan

Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked Wednesday if the crimes committed during the violent nationwide riots on May 9, 2023 were more serious than terrorist incidents, since the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court heard a case on military judgments of civilians arrested by the incident.

The case refers to military trials, and the recent civilians’ judgment for their role in attacks on the army facilities during the disturbances that followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan on May 9, 2023.

On December 13 of last year, the Constitutional Bank conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts of 85 civilians who were still in custody for their alleged participation in the disturbances. On December 21, the military courts condemned 25 civilians to prison terms that go from two to 10 years for their participation in violent attacks in military facilities during the riots. A week later, another 60 civilians received prison terms that go from two to 10 years for their participation in the disturbances.

Judge Rizvi’s comments occurred when the Bank resumed the hearing of intra-Court (Ica) appeals challenging a ruling of October 23, 2023 by a bank of five judges that had unanimously declared that judge the civilians accused in Military courts violated the Constitution.

The Constitutional Bank of Seven Judges was headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan and also included the Afghan judges, Jamal Khan Commandkhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilal, Shahid Bilal Hassan and Rizvi. The Bank has questioned in the recent hearings why the defendants were “specifically” tried in the military courts instead of the anti -terrorist courts, with Judge Commandkhail observing that “the Executive cannot play the role of the Judiciary.”

During today’s hearing, lawyer Khawaja Haris appeared as the lawyer of the Ministry of Defense and continued his arguments that, although the courts were mentioned in the Constitution under article 175, the military courts were not.

“Military courts are formed under a separate law that is recognized,” he said.

Judge Commandkhail commented that the powers of the courts formed by virtue of article 175 were extensive, while the jurisdiction of any court formed under a specific law was limited.

He said that according to the 21st Constitutional amendment, the military courts were created in times of war and the amendments had to be done in the Constitution to prove civilians.

“There was no need for any amendment to the trial,” said lawyer Haris, adding that “additional crimes were included in the Army Law through the amendment.”

Judge Rizvi commented that the attacks of the Mehran Base and the Kamra base were mentioned in the 21st amendment.

“Where was the trial of those who attacked GHQ (general headquarters)?” asked. “Two orion aircraft worth billions of rupees were destroyed [in the Mehran base attack]; Is the crime of May 9 more serious than these incidents?

Lawyer Haris said that all the perpetrators of Mehran’s base attack were killed.

“Then, after they died, wasn’t any investigation into who they were, where did they come from and how did they come? Did the Muhran base attack file closed after the terrorists were killed? Judge Rizvi asked.

The lawyer Haris responded by saying that an investigation must have been conducted. “The case of the GHQ attack occurred in the military courts and took place before amendment 21”.

Judge Rizvi commented that the amendments were made based on these attacks and asked: “What happened to the accused in the attack on the Kamra base? When did they have a trial?

Lawyer Haris said he would inform the court after taking instructions and completing his arguments.

The additional attorney general said that he would adopt the same arguments you make. The audience was later postponed until tomorrow.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *