SC questions trial procedure of cases in military courts

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) is hearing a case related to military courts, where several judges have raised concerns about the trial process and the qualifications of officers making decisions.

The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard intra-court appeals challenging the decisions of military courts. The bench also comprised Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail urged the need to be convinced about the military trial procedure.

“Does the officer conducting the trial have the necessary experience and competence to pass severe sentences, including the death penalty?”

Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the practice of the officer conducting the trial not being the one to issue the verdict, pointing out that the trial officer refers the case to a senior officer for the final decision. She raised concerns about how an officer who has not heard the trial could be the one to decide the outcome.

Justice Naeem Afghan discussed the nature of military trials, noting that although the general perception is that military courts only pass sentences, the process is more involved. He shared his experience hearing cases against court martial decisions at the Balochistan High Court. He also mentioned that military trials allow for a defense attorney, just like in civilian courts.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi added that in military courts, the trial procedures, including arguments from lawyers and cross-examination of witnesses, are similar to those in regular courts. The only difference is that a military officer serves as the judge.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail further reflected on his own 38 years of experience in law, stating, “I still do not consider myself perfect.”

He questioned whether an officer sitting in a military court could be perfect enough to impose such severe sentences.