ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned on Wednesday why military courts were not nullified in the 21st Constitutional Amendment during the hearing of an intra-court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts. The case was heard by a seven-member bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
Lawyers’ Arguments & Objections
- Latif Khosa objected to Salman Akram Raja’s arguments, stating that Raja was also his lawyer but had contradicted his stance.
- Raja clarified that he had only disagreed with one paragraph of Justice Munib Akhtar’s decision and stood by his previous arguments.
- Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan advised against paying attention to social media.
- Justice Musarrat Hilali stated that, as a judge, she could not respond to media reports despite wanting to.
Exchanges Between Justices & Khosa
- Khosa argued that the entire nation was watching the case and that the SC itself was under trial.
- Justice Aminuddin disagreed, stating that the court was not under trial but would decide based on the Constitution and law.
- Khosa referenced the Quran and Islamic history to emphasize judicial independence, to which Justice Mandokhail responded that judicial independence had existed even during the Rashidun Caliphate.
- Khosa criticized military trials for being secretive, but Justice Aminuddin noted that a fair trial mechanism existed—the issue was its implementation.
Justices’ Questions & Parliament’s Role
- Justice Mandokhail asked what steps Khosa had taken to repeal Section 2(d) during his political career.
- Justice Mazhar questioned why military courts were not declared void in the 21st Amendment.
- Khosa responded that wartime conditions and the two-year limit prevented nullification.
- Justice Hilali noted that while Parliament approved the 26th Amendment, Khosa wanted the courts to strike it down.
May 9 Riots & Law Enforcement’s Role
- Khosa questioned why police did not intervene during the May 9 riots.
- Justice Hilali countered whether he wanted bodies on the streets due to police confrontation.
Imran Khan’s Lawyer’s Arguments
- PTI’s lawyer, Uzair Bhandari, agreed with all arguments except Raja’s objection to Justice Munib’s ruling.
- Justice Mazhar questioned why Parliament introduced the Practice and Procedure Act if only a review was required.
- Justice Mandokhail raised concerns about the 26th Amendment and whether previous laws still applied.
Next Hearing
- Justice Mazhar highlighted that past rulings under Article 184 had harmed people, leading Parliament to introduce the right of appeal.
- The hearing was adjourned until Thursday (tomorrow).
