مضمون کا ماخذ : Thuật toán bắn cá
May 9: SC seeks details of all arrested accused
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought complete details of accused arrested in connection with the May 9 riots and instructed respondents to submit written comments in the petitions against trial of civilian offenders in military courts. A seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice […]
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought complete details of accused arrested in connection with the May 9 riots and instructed respondents to submit written comments in the petitions against trial of civilian offenders in military courts.
A seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhter, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Muzahir Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik heard the case. Earlier, a nine-member bench was dissolved after Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tarqi Masood recused to hear the case. At the outset of the hearing, CJP Bandial asked Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan to produce the correct details of people who had been arrested as the bench wanted to conclude the case as soon as possible.
It should be told that how many people had been arrested and where the women prisoners were being kept, he added.
The CJP observed that every accused should be given an opportunity to defend himself through their counsel, but the lawyers were also being arrested and harassed, which was intolerable.
AGP Mansoor Awan said harassing any lawyer was an illegal act.
The chief justice remarked that the court wanted to remain limited to the facts, asking why the names of some police personnel were also included in the cases.
He observed that the bench would also view the previous decisions of the apex court on army courts.
The CJP asked as per the Official Secrets Act which crime fell in the jurisdiction of military courts. Latif Khosa, counsel for petitioner Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, replied that it had been mentioned that a trial in military court could be run on attack on military installation but this matter was related to the Core Commander’s House.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked whether any affectee had also approached the top court directly.
He asked the respondents to show the application seeking shifting of cases to military courts, observing that the Anti-Terrorism Courts could refuse to shift the trial. Salman Akram Raja Advocate replied that so far no affectee had approached the court. Justice Afridi questioned whether anyone had challenged the law under which the trial would be run in military courts, and the cases of how many persons had been referred for court martial and under which law they were being awarded sentences. Justice Ayesha Malik asked the lawyers to tell about military rules and the Army Act and that how the cases could be shifted to military courts when the Army Act could not be applied on civilians.
Justice Mazahar Naqvi noted that only ATCs were authorized to hear the cases regarding the May 9 incidents. Latif Khosa Advocate claimed that around 4,000 people had been arrested across the country on May 10 and no case was registered against them under the Army Act. They wanted their trials should be run in ATCs, he added.
He said there was no mention of civilians’ trial in the Army Act. An application was filed in the ATC for shifting of cases to military courts, he said, adding he had no sympathy with anybody who had committed crime.
Latif Khosa claimed raids were also being conducted at the lawyers’ houses and it would defame the country at international level. He also read out the declaration issued after the meeting of Formation Commanders. As the hearing began, Justice Mansoor said he was ready to separate from the bench if anyone had objection on him as one of the petitioners was his relative. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said nobody had objection on him.
The chief justice observed that the court was not issuing stay order on the matter as it wanted to first hear the AGP. The hearing was then adjourned till Friday. The court adjourned further hearing of the case till today.
