A six-member bench of the Supreme Court has postponed the hearing of a host of petitions against possible military trials of civilians involved in the May 9 riots till the third week of July, with the chief justice of Pakistan expressing hope that the trials would not begin immediately.
“I hope immediate trials will not begin,” CJP Umar Ata Bandial remarked at the end of the hearing.
While addressing the attorney general for Pakistan and the petitioners, CJP Umar Ata Bandial said that he would tell in the first week after Eid when the next hearing of the petitions would be held.
He addressed the petitioners and said that the government should take care of those who are arrested.
The government submitted to the court a list of 102 people who face the possibility of being tried in military courts over charges of attacking military installations.
DG ISPR’s comments about military court trials earned a mention in the Supreme Court as a six-member bench resumed hearing the military courts case on Tuesday.
The bench was hearing the petition on the last day on Tuesday before the court begins its annual holidays.
“DG ISPR said yesterday that the trials are going on,” Imran Khan’s lawyer Uzair Bhandari said. “This contradicts the attorney general’s statement,” he added.
“I still stand by my statement,” Attorney General Mansoor Awan replied.
“We believe you,” Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial replied.
Bhandari told the court that he only wanted to advance the point that civilians could not be tried in military courts. He said he would not get into trials of military personnel.
He added that even the parliament could not allow the trial of civilians without a constitutional amendment and the rule had been laid out in the 21st constitutional amendment.
At this Justice Ayesha Malik questioned if civilians could be tried in military courts if they were linked to someone inside the military.
Justice Yahya Afridi remarked that the situation had been clarified by the DG ISPR’s press conference on Monday.
“Is there an internal link being made?” Justice Afridi asked.
The attorney general responded that the current proceedings were related to whether people abetted from inside the institution.
Justice Afridi then called the AG to the rostrum and asked which laws the accused were being tried under.
AG Mansoor Awan replied that Section 2(d)(I) of the Army Act was reserved for army personnel and people accused of being involved in May 9 were being tried under 2(d)(ii).
Justice Malik cited the FB Malik case to say that there was a precedent of civilians being tried in military courts if there was a link inside the institution.
