Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghans from the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench said on Tuesday that international law does not explicitly prohibit the Court of Justice for civilians.
The SC Judge made these comments during the hearing of appeals within court that challenged the declaration of civilian litigation in military courts as invalid.
During the case, justice asked Jamal Khan Mandokhel about the consequences if a country does not comply with international rules. The appeals were heard by a seven-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, during the hearing of an intra-law’s appeal against the decision to try civilians in military courts, noted that international principles do not say civilians cannot be corrected.
The lawyer of May 9 -accused, Arzam Junaid, Salman Akram Raja, continued his arguments and said he would end his arguments at 1 p.m. 11.00. Justice Jamal Mandokhel noted that it would be better if the arguments were completed in half an hour.
Salman Akram Raja replied by saying that he should be allowed to say what he wanted so that he could end with 11. He emphasized that civilian rights on simple terms should not be terminated to conduct a court match.
Salman Akram Raja claimed that civilians in the Court of Justice are contrary to international standards for a fair trial.
“International standards require litigation to be public, righteous and transparent, with decisions made public. Decisions from military courts around the world are often appealed by courts and a decision by a European court has forced many countries to revise their court battle procedures , “he said.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked, “What would happen if international principles are not followed?” As Salman Akram Raja replied, “Not to comply with international principles means that the trial is not transparent.”
Justice Mandokhel pressed further, “What happens if a country violates international principles?” Raja replied: “Some international principles are mandatory, while others are not. However, the principle of a fair trial, which is laid down in Article 10a of our Constitution, was added to the light of international standards.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan then noted, “Nowhere in international principles says that civilians cannot be dressed.”
Salman Akram Raja pointed out that judicial orders in the UK are being carried out by independent judges, not military staff. “In the FB Ali case, the principle of separation of power was not in place. At that time, Deputy Commissioners and Tehsildarian criminal lawsuits were argued that if a Deputy Commissioner could carry out a criminal trial, a colonel could do so too.”
Raja continued, “All countries present their compliance with international principles for the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Committee reviews these reports and gives their opinion.” He added that the UN Human Rights Committee last year, in October and November, underwent Pakistan’s military justice system and expressed concern over civilians.
“The Committee found that Pakistan’s military courts are not independent,” he noted, “and they recommended to give bail to those in military custody.” Raja also mentioned that the European Commission had declared that the court match for the nine protesters was wrong and that the European Union had given Pakistan GSP Plus status.
He further highlighted, “Justice Yahya Afridi raised these same concerns in his disagreement note and asked why thousands could be tried by ATC Court, but not the 105.”
During the hearing, an interesting exchange took place between Salman Raja and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
Salman Raja said, “In England there was a coincidence where a soldier named Fedley was courted. Do you remember that Fedley’s firing also resulted in a TV being broken.
He continued, “the person who broke the TV during the events of May 9 was someone I met later. He was ashamed of what had happened. He was an unemployed person, with only four degree of education. And I Couldn’t avoid feeling for him – he was a victim of society that gave so little to people like him.
Justice Ameenuddin Khan intervened and advised against discussing personal affairs, while justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked Salman Raja if he had met Fedley.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, smiling, noticed: “No, Salman Raja has met the Pakistani Fedley.”
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi then commented, “You said your client used to play first -class cricket. He didn’t go to play cricket on May 9, he did?”
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar asked, “According to what law was Kulbhushan considering the right to appeal? Is that law present in front of us?” As additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman replied, “I will bring that law on record.”
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar noted, “Was the law that was only introduced for Kulbhushan?”
Aziz Bhindari replied, “Spies who are authorized by the International Court are entitled to an appeal.”
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel then asked, “How many Kulbhushans are here?”
Additional Lawyer Aamir Rehman replied: “Classification is also allowed in FB Ali.”
Salman Raja then expressed his disagreement with the decision of Justice Muneeb Akhtar about the establishment of military courts and said, “No judge should be allowed to include words in the constitution that is not part of the text in the constitution. If this is allowed, Is it would be extremely dangerous.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel replied: “Another example could be from Anarkali Bazaar, where it was written outside a store ‘badhia quality’ (good quality), but someone read it as ‘badhia cow ulti’ (older is vomiting). This got the courtroom to blow up in laughter.
Salman Raja referred to the practice and procedure decision and review decisions in Article 63-A, emphasizing that no court in the world will be free unless it ensures the right to a fair consultation. He argued that even without Article 175 (2).
Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar noticed, “Justice Muneeb Akhtar considered in the majority decision military courts as a parallel justice system.” Salman Akram Raja replied: “Justice Muneeb Akhtar made this interpretation of the Constitution by considering the story. He wrote that military courts have a historical background, and interpretation of the constitution based on history could lead to extremely dangerous results. This is an extremely dangerous way To interpret the Constitution.
He also argued, “When the Constitution is clear, it cannot be interpreted, as was the case in the interpretation of Article 63-A, but in the review of Article 63-A, the interpretation was correct.”
With it, Salman Akram Raja completed his arguments and the Supreme Court postponed the hearing of the military court cases until tomorrow. The founder of PTI’s lawyer, Azir Bhindari, begins his arguments tomorrow.
