ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned lawyer Salman Akram Raja about whether he acknowledged that a crime was committed on May 9, 2023, asking why fundamental rights are being emphasized now when limits were crossed during the incident.
“Limits were crossed on May 9, and now you remember basic rights?” Justice Hilali remarked during a hearing of an intra-court appeal against the military trials of civilians, led by a seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan.
Raja, representing convicted criminal Arzam Junaid, argued that in the UK, court-martial trials are conducted by high-court-style judges rather than military officers, and commanding officers can only refer serious cases to an independent forum.
Justice Amin-Ud-Din countered that the bench was focused on Pakistan’s legal framework and that unnecessary discussions on foreign laws would waste time.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that British law pertains to military discipline, whereas the current case involves civilians.
“How can such a law be applicable to civilians?” he questioned. Raja responded that the British example was cited to highlight the need for transparent and independent trials.
During the hearing, Justice Hilali noted that the pending appeals seek the restoration of annulled provisions and that international laws should be considered in this context.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned whether civilians could face court-martial under the current legal system, to which Raja firmly replied that such a scenario was impossible.
The hearing also touched upon the ongoing struggle for justice by the victims of the Army Public School (APS) attack. Raja highlighted that despite their tragic loss, the victims are still deprived of fair resolution.
Justice Amin-Ud-Din stated that ensuring a fair trial would require overcoming legal hurdles, such as addressing Article 8(3) of the Constitution.
Justice Rizvi questioned whether the military should have a judicial corps, similar to its engineering and medical divisions.
Raja argued that accusing someone and depriving them of a fair trial violates basic human rights.
He recalled being falsely accused of conspiring with PTI to kill Rangers personnel and warned that if the law’s provisions were restored, he might be forced to appear before a colonel in a military trial.
Justice Mazhar noted that an anti-terrorism section might have been added to his FIR, while Justice Amin-Ud-Din questioned whether military custody was requested in his case.
Raja responded that his case exemplified how accusations alone could subject civilians to military trials.
Justice Mandokhail advised Raja to stick to facts and avoid speculation.
Justice Hilali remarked that when the 21st Constitutional Amendment was enacted, Raja’s party supported military courts.
Raja clarified that he was not representing any political party and admitted that supporting military courts was a mistake.
Justice Hilali questioned whether past decisions could simply be labeled as mistakes just because the political landscape had changed.
The court also discussed the provision in the 21st Amendment that exempted political parties from military trials, which Justice Mandokhail called a positive aspect.
The hearing was adjourned until February 18, when Raja will continue his arguments.
