On Friday, Justice Jamal Mandokhail raised questions about the qualifications of army officers to issue death sentences during a Supreme Court hearing in an intra-court appeal against trying civilians in military courts, overseen by a seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional and ordered that 103 suspects undergo trial in civilian courts. However, a six-member bench temporarily paused this ruling in December 2023.
Despite this suspension, the constitutional bench later allowed military courts to conditionally issue verdicts for 85 detainees involved in the May 9, 2023, riots, which broke out after authorities arrested the PTI founder on corruption charges.
Justice Mandokhail stressed that the Army Act should only apply to military personnel, highlighting the court’s responsibility to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice for all. During the proceedings, Justice Musarrat Hilali raised questions about drafting judgments in military courts, indicating that the decision-makers often did not hear the cases themselves.
Read: Supreme Court Questions Civilian Trials in Military Courts
Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defence, explained that the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch assists in drafting these judgments. When asked about the structure of military trials worldwide, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that military officers generally preside over such trials, which Haris confirmed.
Justice Hilali mentioned a significant incident involving an army chief and asked why a military court did not handle it. Haris replied that hijacking is not covered under the Army Act.
In these discussions, Justice Mandokhail humbly acknowledged his limitations in expertise despite decades of experience and questioned whether army officers possess the necessary expertise to issue death sentences.
The hearing focused on ongoing concerns and debates on the appropriate trial venue. The constitutional bench expects to hear further arguments in upcoming sessions and has adjourned until Monday.
