SC seeks clarity on May 9 protest at Jinnah House

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court posed a series of probing questions, seeking clarity on the security breach at the Corps Commander House (Jinnah House) and any possibility of military personnel’s involvement.

Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked the defence counsel on Tuesday, “How did the protesters manage to reach the Corps Commander House without being armed?” while emphasizing that theA breach was a security failure. Furthermore, Justice Rizvi inquired whether any military personnel were implicated in the events and if so, whether they were subsequently tried.

A seven-member bench of the constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard the Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) of the Federal Government as well as the Ministry of Defence against the apex court judgment declaring trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

Khwaja Haris, counsel for the Ministry of Defence, continued his arguments. During the hearing, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi observed that after all, there has to be a mastermind and questioned who orchestrated the conspiracy. Khwaja Haris replied that the trial of the conspirator or the mastermind will also be conducted in the military court adding that civilian trial is not happening suddenly and there is a law since 1967. While referring to Liaqat Hussain’s case, he submitted that the case was a precedent for trying civilians in military courts for civil crimes.

Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi also raised questions over the intrusion of unarmed persons in Corps Commander’s House, Lahore. on May 9. “How did people reach Corps Commander’s House without weapons on May 9,” Justice Rizvi asked adding that people going inside the Corps Commander’s House is a failure of security.

Khwaja Haris, however, replied that the protestors are accused of damaging property. “Was there a trial on the involvement of a military officer in the events of May 9,” Justice Rizvi further asked the counsel. Khwaja Haris replied that no military officer was tried in the May 9 incident. Justice Rizvi further asked as to whether any resistance had been made when military installations were damaged on May 9. Khwaja Haris replied that complete restraint had been exercised to avoid loss of life.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, while referring to FB Ali’s case, observed that FB Ali was accused of conniving with some people within the institution, therefore, it was necessary to prove the contribution of someone from within the institution.

“The organization consists of individuals, so tell us the relationship with the individuals,” Justice Mandokhail asked the learned counsel.

“Khawaja Sahib, I have a relationship with you and merely having this relationship will not constitute our collusion in any of your cases,” Justice Mandokhail continued and said “That it would be necessary to tell whether we both were related in the crime that was committed. This is a very important point, please note it.”

Khwaja Haris, however, submitted that if he goes to a defence institution and steals a gun, this matter will also be tried in the military court. Justice Musarat Hilali observed that on May 9, many people were unaware as to where they were going. Khwaja Haris, however, replied that all these people were not tried by military court adding that he will present the details of the accused persons in the matter. The counsel submitted that a trial for inciting a soldier to stop work will be under the Army Act adding that the Supreme Court has declared in the past that retired officials are civilians. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, while addressing the counsel, said that his entire reliance is on the FB Ali case adding that both retired and serving officers were involved in the FB Ali case. Justice Mandokhail noted that in the current case, someone is accused of inciting the army to stop working adding that under the Army Act, an offence will be committed when an officer complains or is involved. Khwaja Haris, however, contended that anyone who violates the discipline of the army will go to the military court. At this, Justice Mandokhail asked the learned counsel as to whether attacking the army convoy would also be a violation of discipline.

Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked the learned counsel for the defence ministry to consider that the FB Ali case is from the martial law era. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was then the civil martial law administrator. “FB Ali case was framed in an attempt to remove Bhutto”, Justice Rizvi remarked adding that martial law ended when the Constitution was made. Khwaja Haris, however, submitted that the matter is correct, but there is no mention of the implementation of emergency in the court’s decision. The learned counsel further submitted that in the FB Ali case, the persons prosecuted were retired. Justice Musarat Hilali asked the counsel as to if a soldier disagrees with a civilian in the cantonment, where will the case go.

Khwaja Haris replied that disagreement is a different matter. The learned counsel further submitted that even in peacetime, the trial of civilians for interfering in military affairs will be conducted in military courts. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday) and Khwaja Haris will continue his arguments.