The lawyer presented his arguments regarding the civilian’s military trial involved in the May 9 protest.

Supreme Court resumes hearing on military trials:

The Apex Court received appeals against the military trials of civilians. The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench resumed hearings on these appeals. A seven-member bench, led by Justice Ameenuddin Khan, listened to the arguments presented by Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, a lawyer representing Justice (R) Jawad S. Khawaja. During the session, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the difference between the 2014 APS attack and the May 9 protests.

Are military trials fair for civilians?

Lawyer Khawaja Ahmad Hussain, in a hearing, argued that the Army Act is only applicable to military personnel and armed forces employees. Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked if the Act also covered attacks on air bases. Upon which, Justice Hilali said that the APS attack was terrorism and that May 9 was a protest. She asked, “What makes the civilians involved in both events different?”

Also Read: PHC Grants ECP 60 Days to Decide On Senate Elections

Khawaja Ahmad Hussain explained that the 21st Constitutional Amendment enabled military trials for terrorists after the APS attack. However, he also insisted that the protestors of the May 9 incident should face civilian courts rather than military courts. Justice Ameenuddin Khan noted that the court has the power to review laws that contradict the Constitution.

Can the military be a fair Judge?

Khawaja Ahmad Hussain questioned the fairness of military trials after ISPR’s claim that evidence against the accused of May 9 was irrefutable. He added, “If the military is a party in the case, how can it ensure justice?” Justice Hilali said that Hussain’s concerns are on the case’s merit, while Justice Ameenuddin Khan advised him to focus solely on legal arguments. Hussain insisted, “A victim cannot conduct an impartial trial.”

Where should Foreign spies be tried?

In the same session, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked Hussain if a foreign spy is captured then where should he be captured? In a response, Hussain replied that a foreign spy’s trial should be in anti-terrorism courts. Justice Rizvi smiled and responded, “Oh really?”

Justice Ameenuddin Khan pointed out contradictions in Hussain’s arguments. He said it is strange to declare a law invalid while also saying special cases should be handled differently.” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked, “Can the Army Act still be used in the future?” Hussain replied that it should not be used in future.

The Apex Court, however, could not end up with a final verdict, and the case was adjourned till February 3.