Military Courts (Pakistan)

Last updated
Military Courts (Pakistan)
Composition methodSpecial courts for trying civilians
Authorized byPakistan Army Act of 1952
Appeals to N/A

Military courts in Pakistan are special courts in the country's judicial system and are set up to try civilians, especially in cases related to terrorism. These courts were established under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 as a response to the growing threat of terrorism and insurgency in the country. [1] [2]

Contents

History

The history of military courts in Pakistan dates back to the early years of the country's existence. The first military tribunal was set up in 1951 to try the perpetrators of the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case. The Military Tribunal sentenced all the convicts in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case to long imprisonment. [3] [4]

In 1953, martial law was declared due to the worsening law and order situation in Punjab, especially in Lahore. Trials of leaders of the anti-Ahmadiyya movement, Molana Abdul Sattar Khan Niazi and Molana Abul A'la Maududi were initiated by military courts, and both were sentenced to death. However, with the lifting of martial law in May 1953, the death sentences handed down by the military court were also nullified. [5]

Military Courts were again set up in Pakistan in the aftermath of the 2014 Peshawar school massacre to dispense speedy justice to terrorists. The move was enabled by the passage of the 21st Constitutional Amendment in 2015 with a sunset clause of 2 years. [6] In January 2017, at the end of the originally stipulated period, a further amendment was made to the constitution to allow the military courts to function for two more years. That provision of the amendment expired in January 2019 and hasn't since been renewed. [7]

The trials in these courts are conducted under the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the Pakistan Army in which the judges and prosecutors are all serving military officers with no formal legal training. [8]

Structure and composition

Military courts, in contrast to civilian courts, are operated by military staff, which includes judges and legal professionals. These individuals are members of the Pakistan Army, Navy, and Air Force. In addition to judges, other military personnel also have a significant influence on the decision-making process within these courts. [2]

Notable cases

After Imran Khan's arrest on 9 May 2023 from within Islamabad High Court, protests spread across the country. [9] In some instances protestors targeted military installations, including the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi and Corp Commander house at Lahore. [10] Several thousand Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leaders and workers were arrested in response, of which 102 defendants had their cases shifted from anti-terrorism courts to military courts. [11] This decision was strongly opposed by human rights organizations and legal experts. [12] [13]

Controversy and criticism

Human rights issues

The use of military courts to try civilians has been the subject of controversy and criticism. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have urged Pakistan not to prosecute civilians in military courts. They argue that the trial of civilians in military courts is a violation of Pakistan's obligations under international human rights law to ensure the rights of criminals to due process and fair trial. [14] [15] HRW has documented a catalog of human rights abuses stemming from the prosecution of civilians in military courts in Pakistan, including a clear disregard for due process, lack of transparency, coerced confessions, and executions after extremely unfair trials. [15]

The opaqueness of the military justice system has been criticized, including by the United Nations and International Commission of Jurists. [16] [17] The proceedings are conducted within military establishments in secrecy and defendants only have the right to appeal the verdict of a military court to a military appellate tribunal, whose decision is turn is deemed final and cannot even be challenged in the higher civil courts of Pakistan. [18]

Amendments Case

In the 2015 District Bar Association (Rawalpindi) v Federation of Pakistan case, the question of "unconstitutional constitutional amendments" was put before a 17-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that challenged specific clauses of the 18th and 21st amendments. Namely, the anti-defection and judicial appointment clauses of the former and the military tribunal cover provided in the latter. [19]

The court, in a landmark verdict described by legal experts as the most important constitutional law decision in the history of Pakistan, ruled that [20] [21] [22] :

  1. With a majority of 13 to 04 the Constitution Petitions were held to be maintainable. Thus allowing for judicial review of the amendments with the view being that of the basic structure doctrine. In essence, providing a check on the power of the parliament to amend the constitution.
  2. With a majority of 14 to 03 the Constitution Petitions challenging the Eighteenth Amendment were dismissed.
  3. With a majority of 11 to 06 the Constitution Petitions challenging the Twenty-first Amendment and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act (2015) were dismissed. This allowed for the continuation of the military courts. The 6 dissenting judges, who deemed the military courts as unconstitutional, were Jawwad S. Khawaja, Asif Saeed Khosa, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Dost Muhammad Khan, and Qazi Faez Isa.

Miltiary Courts Case

In October 2023, the Supreme Court of Pakistan invalidated the trial of civilians in military courts. [23] The court ordered that the accused in the May 2023 violence-related cases be tried under ordinary criminal laws. [24]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Pakistan</span> Political system of Pakistan

The Politics of Pakistan takes place within the framework established by the constitution. The country is a federal parliamentary republic in which provincial governments enjoy a high degree of autonomy and residuary powers. Executive power is vested with the national cabinet which is headed by Prime Minister of Pakistan, who works with the bicameral parliament and the judiciary. Stipulations set by the constitution provide a delicate check and balance of sharing powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Pakistan</span> Highest authority court of Pakistan

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the apex court in the judicial hierarchy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nazim Hussain Siddiqui</span> Pakistani judge (1940–2022)

Nazim Hussain Siddiqui a Pakistani jurist who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, from 31 December 2003 to 29 June 2005.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6–2 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry</span> Pakistani judge

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is a Pakistani jurist who served as the 20th Chief Justice of Pakistan over three non-consecutive terms from 29 June 2005 to 11 December 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial system of Turkey</span> National court system of the Republic of Turkey

The judicial system of Turkey is defined by Articles 138 to 160 of the Constitution of Turkey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Pakistan</span> National judicial system

The judiciary of Pakistan is the national system of courts that maintains the law and order in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Pakistan uses a common law system, which was introduced during the colonial era, influenced by local medieval judicial systems based on religious and cultural practices. The Constitution of Pakistan lays down the fundamentals and working of the Pakistani judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military Commissions Act of 2006</span> Former United States law

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The Hyderabad tribunal (1975–1979), also known as Hyderabad conspiracy case, is the name of a former judicial tribunal used in Pakistan to prosecute opposition politicians of the National Awami Party on the charges of treason and acting against the ideology of Pakistan.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Pakistani state of emergency</span> 2007 political crisis in Pakistan

A state of emergency was declared by President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf on 3 November 2007 which lasted until 15 December 2007, during which the Constitution of Pakistan of was suspended. When the state of emergency was declared, Musharraf controversially held both positions of President and Chief of Army Staff. He later resigned as army chief 25 days into the emergency on 28 November. The state of emergency and its responses are generally attributed to the controversies surrounding the re-election of Musharraf during the presidential election on 6 October 2007, including his holding of both offices of President and Chief of Army Staff at the time.

Qazi Faez Isa is a Pakistani jurist who is currently serving as the 29th chief justice of Pakistan since 17 September 2023. He was appointed as a justice of the Supreme Court in 2014, having previously served as the chief justice of Balochistan High Court from 2009 to 2014.

<i>Said Zaman Khan v. Federation of Pakistan</i>

Said Zaman Khan v. Federation of Pakistan is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld death sentences against sixteen terrorists convicted by military courts in 2016. The accused included members of militant groups Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan and al-Qaeda, as well as suspects involved in the Peshawar school massacre in 2014, the Bannu jailbreak in 2012, and the Rawalpindi Parade Lane bombing in 2009. The decision marked the first time the Court ruled on the legality of military trials, legalized for civilian terror suspects after the school massacre.

An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review based on the idea that even a properly passed and properly ratified constitutional amendment, specifically one that is not explicitly prohibited by a constitution's text, can nevertheless be unconstitutional on substantive grounds—such as due to this amendment conflicting with some constitutional or even extra-constitutional norm, value, and/or principle. As Israeli legal academic Yaniv Roznai's 2017 book Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers demonstrates, the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars in various countries throughout history. While this doctrine has generally applied specifically to constitutional amendments, there have been moves and proposals to also apply this doctrine to original parts of a constitution.

Pakistan Army Act, 1952 is a controversial act, passed by the Parliament of Pakistan in 1952. It is the primary statute governing the affairs of Pakistan Army.

A political and constitutional crisis emerged in Pakistan from, 3 April 2022 to 10 April 2022 when, National Assembly's Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri dismissed a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan during a session in which it was expected to be taken up for a vote, alleging that a foreign country's involvement in the regime change was contradictory to Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Moments later, Khan stated in a televised address that he had advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly. Alvi complied with Khan's advice under Article 58 of the constitution. This resulted in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) taking a suo motu notice of the ongoing situation, creating a constitutional crisis, as effectively, Imran Khan led a constitutional coup. Four days later, the SCP ruled that the dismissal of the no-confidence motion, the prorogation of the National Assembly, the advice from Imran Khan to President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly, and the subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly were unconstitutional, and overturned these actions in a 5-0 vote. The Supreme Court further held that the National Assembly had not been prorogued and had to be reconvened by the speaker immediately and no later than 10:30 a.m. on 9 April 2022.

The May 9 riots or 9/5 riots were a series of violent incidents that took place on 9 May 2023, in Pakistan. Following the arrest of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party's head, Imran Khan, from the grounds of the Islamabad High Court, demonstrations held by PTI's supporters descended into violent riots. There was extensive damage done to government and military facilities as a result of the protests fast becoming violent and engaging law enforcement. The government responded with a mobile internet blockade and a crackdown against PTI's leaders, workers, and supporters, as well as those perceived to be allied to the party's cause within the media and legal fraternity. Trials of civilians within military courts were also initiated and are being challenged in the country's Supreme Court in the military courts case. PTI alleges that the incidents of 9th May were a false flag operation designed by the Pakistani establishment to disintegrate PTI and frame Imran Khan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military courts case</span>

The Military courts case is a case being heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) which considers the question of whether the trial of civilians under Pakistani military courts is unconstitutional. The Court has clubbed 6 different constitutional petitions regarding the matter into a single case that is being heard by 6-member larger bench of the court. The origin of the petitions lies in the initiation of military trial of 102 defendants of May 9 riots, whose cases were transferred to the military courts from civilian ones at the Army's behest.

References

  1. ↑ "The trial of civilians in military courts under Pakistan Army Act and the Official Secrets Act". The Nation. June 22, 2023.
  2. 1 2 Ullah, Ihsan (June 1, 2023). "Behind Closed Doors: Pakistan's Military Courts - The Pakistan Gazette". thepakistangazette.com.
  3. ↑ "History of military courts in Pakistan".
  4. ↑ http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/18_v21_2_20.pdf
  5. ↑ "History of military courts in pakistan". pakistanlawyer.com.
  6. ↑ Gul, Imtiaz. "Military Courts – Performance, Review and Challenges". Center for Research and Security Studies. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  7. ↑ "Aitzaz Ahsan challenges military courts". The Express Tribune. 2023-06-17. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  8. ↑ "Former CJ also challenges military courts". The Express Tribune. 2023-06-21. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  9. ↑ "Imran Khan: Mass protests across Pakistan after ex-PM arrest". BBC News. 2023-05-09. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  10. ↑ Najjar, Hafsa Adil,Farah. "Imran Khan arrest updates: Protests after ex-Pakistan PM held". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-06-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ "Pakistan says 102 in military court over ex-PM Khan arrest violence". France 24. 2023-06-26. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  12. ↑ "Pakistan: Don't Try Civilians in Military Courts | Human Rights Watch". 31 May 2023.
  13. ↑ "Pakistan: Civilians must not be tried under military laws". 16 May 2023.
  14. ↑ "Pakistan: Don't Try Civilians in Military Courts | Human Rights Watch". May 31, 2023.
  15. 1 2 "Pakistan: Civilians must not be tried under military laws". Amnesty International. May 16, 2023.
  16. ↑ "Committee against Torture examines initial report of Pakistan". OHCHR. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  17. ↑ "Military Injustice in Pakistan" (PDF). International Commission of Jurists. January 2019. p. 3. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
  18. ↑ "Military Injustice in Pakistan" (PDF). International Commission of Jurists. January 2019. p. 11. Retrieved 26 June 2023.
  19. ↑ Hashmi, ZZ. "Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments or Amending the Unamendable? A Critique of District Bar Association Rawalpindi V. Federation of Pakistan" (PDF). Pakistan Law Review. 9 (2018): 3. Archived from the original on 2022-03-15.
  20. ↑ Mir, Waqas. "Saying not what the Constitution is ... but what it should be: Comment on the Judgment on the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution" (PDF). LUMS-SAHSOL. Archived from the original on 2024-01-09. Retrieved 2024-01-10.
  21. ↑ Hashmi, ZZ. "Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments or Amending the Unamendable? A Critique of District Bar Association Rawalpindi V. Federation of Pakistan" (PDF). Pakistan Law Review. 9 (2018): 13. Archived from the original on 2022-03-15.
  22. ↑ "Six judges declare 21st Amendment, military courts illegal". DAWN.COM. 2015-08-06. Retrieved 2024-01-11.
  23. ↑ "SC declares trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional".
  24. ↑ "Military trials of civilians: SC to take up pleas on Oct 23". 20 October 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.