Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Pakistan referred on Tuesday to the former general chief of the army (Retd.) Qamar Javed Bajwa’s Extension while hearing a case on military trials for civilians, reviving the debate on previous previous ones legal.
A constitutional bench of seven members, led by Judge Amicin Khan, heard an intra-short appeal contesting the jurisdiction of the military courts on civilians.
During the procedure, the extension of Bajwa’s mandate was cited as an example of legal changes motivated by court interventions.
Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan pointed out that the extension of the former army chief had no legal support at the time and was only formalized after parliamentary legislation, according to the directives of the Court supreme.
Judge Amicin Khan recalled the urgency surrounding the case, declaring: “At that time, everyone sat together for a single notification. It was our state.
The case has seen lawyers call into question the legal position of military trials for civilians.
Lawyer Uzair Bhandari, representing the former Prime Minister Imran Khan, argued that the military courts were missing from trained judges and fail to provide fair trials.
He noted that in the context of military legal proceedings, even the right to appeal is limited to a plea of mercy before the chief of the army.
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi challenged this point of view, highlighting the video evidence of attacks on military facilities, declaring that security in these regions was under the control of the army.
He suggested that military participation justified trials within the legal framework of the army.
Judge Musarrat Hilali, addressing Bhandari, commented: “You discuss one thing, but your client says something else.”
She referred to Khan’s past statements on negotiations only with those who have power.
Bhandari refused to comment on his client’s remarks, maintaining his accent on the legal aspects of the case.
During the arguments, references were made to the military test system of India. Judge Amicin Khan noted that Indian law authorizes appels to independent courts, wondering if these rights had been legislated by the parliament or mandated by the courts.
J. Muhammad Ali Mazhar stressed the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national judged under the Pakistan military justice system.
He recalled to the Court that Pakistan only gave Jadhav’s appeal rights after the decision of the International Court of Justice and subsequent legislation.
Bhandari has concluded his arguments, saying that fundamental rights must be confirmed in all legal proceedings.
The court postponed the case until tomorrow, with the lawyer Faisal Siddiqui who presented arguments during the next session.
