Trial of civilians in military courts: KBA voices its opposition to SC verdict
In a press release it alleged: 'this retrogressive judgment restores provisions of the Pakistan Army Act 1952, which enable the trial of civilians by military courts, and constitutes a serious blow to the basic structure of the Constitution, including Article 10-A.8.175(3) and 4, among others.'
It said the verdict comes at a time when the legal fraternity is already engaged in a continuous and principled struggle against corporate farming, the 26th constitutional amendment, and PECA amendments, all reflecting executive excesses.
It claimed that the latest judgment marks yet another judicial capitulation before the coercive organs of the state. 'It sets a dangerous precedent where military jurisdiction can now be extended over civilians, eroding the sanctity of civilian supremacy and paving the war for further repression of political dissent, free speech, and peaceful protest.'
It claimed that the decision is not merely a judicial misstep it is a clear abdication of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check on executive power. It alleged that instead of upholding fundamental rights, the judgment lends judicial endorsement of militarization of justice, and compromises the principle of due process, open trial, and impartial adjudication, all of which are the cornerstones of any democratic order. 'It is deeply alarming that the judiciary, instead of acting as bulwark against executive overreach, now appears to be subservient to non-civilian institutions, thereby undermining public confidence in judicial independence.'
The KBA asserted that no constitutional interpretation, no matter how technical, can justify the military trial of a civilian. It opined that such trials are inherently incompatible with constitutional guarantees, international law, and the globally recognised right to a fair trial. It said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a signatory, strictly prohibits such practices.
It called upon all Bar Councils and Association across the country, including the Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association and Provincial Bar Councils to immediately convene and form a National United Front against this 'unconstitutional encroachment'. It also urged the civil society, democratic political parties, media, human rights defenders and masses to 'resist to this judicial surrender and reclaim the constitution from creeping authoritarianism'.
The KBA demanded that the parliament must immediately legislate to permanently prohibit military trials of civilians, amend the Pakistan Army Act 1952 accordingly, and restore the sanctity of Article 10-A. No delay can be justified in protecting the constitution and the unalienable rights of the people.
The KBA said it will continue its lawful resistance, including legal, institutional and democratic means, to oppose the judgment. It said the legal fraternity stand united and resolute to not to allow the subversions of the constitution under the guise of the national security.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Indian court frees 12 in 2006 Mumbai train bombings
An Indian prisoner, convicted of involvement in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, looks out from a police van on his way to a special court in Mumbai on September 16, 2015. (AFP/File) An Indian court acquitted on Monday 12 men previously convicted for a series of bomb blasts that ripped through packed commuter trains in Mumbai in 2006 that killed 187 people. The men were convicted in 2015 of murder, conspiracy, and waging war against the country over the attacks during the evening rush hour of July 11, 2006 that also injured more than 800 people. Five were sentenced to death, while the other seven were given life imprisonment. But, 10 years later, the Bombay High Court set aside a lower court's verdict and acquitted the 12 men. Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak said in their judgment, the prosecution had 'utterly failed to establish the offense beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused on each count.' The men were ordered to be released from jail 'if they are not required to be detained in any other case.' The prosecution can appeal against the order in the Supreme Court. Read: US hosts Pakistan military chief at White House, India responds by warming to China A total of seven blasts ripped through the trains after the bombs, packed into pressure cookers, were placed in bags and hidden under newspapers and umbrellas. Prosecutors said the devices were assembled in Mumbai and deliberately placed in first-class coaches to target the city's wealthy Gujarati community. They said the bombings were intended as revenge for the riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002, which left some 2,000 people dead, most of them Muslims. Prosecutors accused Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba of being behind the attacks, although a little-known outfit called the Lashkar-e-Qahhar later claimed responsibility. Pakistan denied the allegations.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC issues contempt notices to PM Shehbaz, cabinet in Dr. Aafia case
Listen to article Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued contempt of court notices to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and members of his federal cabinet over non-compliance in the case concerning efforts for the release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui. The court directed the federal government to submit a response within two weeks. A written order, authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, noted a pattern of repeated executive defiance and interference in judicial functions. "Despite the court order, the federal government failed to submit reasons before the court," the IHC said. "The court has no option left but to issue a contempt of court notice to the federal government." Justice Ejaz remarked that the judiciary had been under persistent attack. 'We have witnessed one attack after another on the pillars of justice. These attacks have repeatedly wounded the justice system and brought it to the verge of collapse.' He further stated, 'today, yet another example of assault on the judiciary has come to light.' Referring to administrative interference in the court's functioning, Justice Ejaz observed, 'justice delivery by one high court judge was being controlled through a weekly roster under the office of the Chief Justice.' 'This situation is both horrifying and absurd at the same time,' he said. 'It is a contradiction that has now become the hallmark of this high court.' Justice Ejaz also recalled that since the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a so-called 'demolition squad' had been effectively brought into the high court. 'The executive's tricks became evident elsewhere,' he said, adding that court proceedings were being restricted through the roster mechanism. He pointed out that judges wishing to hear cases during judicial vacations were denied permission by the court's administration. 'If a judge wishes to hold court during vacations to deliver justice, the high court administration will not permit it,' he said. The judge added that the government had been given ample opportunity to comply. 'The court had given the government an opportunity to present its report,' Justice Ejaz said. The Assistant Attorney General was warned earlier that contempt proceedings would be initiated if the report was not filed. Rather than submit the report, the government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order to submit an amended application, the court noted. 'For whatever reason, the Supreme Court did not hear the government's case,' Justice Ejaz remarked.
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Punjab PA speaker 'overplayed his hand'
From questioning the honourability of suspended assembly members to calling their disorderly conduct a sheer violation of oath warranting disqualification, Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan has now taken a sharp U-turn — asking PML-N lawmakers to approach the judiciary to prove the veracity of their claims. The climbdown has raised eyebrows with some suggesting that the speaker, who had wrapped himself in the flag of constitutionalism, may have overreached and was now quietly trying to retreat. Pitched as a principled stand against parliamentary disorder, the move is now being read as an overzealous solo flight. In the aftermath of the ruckus on the assembly floor, Speaker Malik had initially come out fuming against 26 Punjab Assembly members, making a case for their disqualification. To give the disqualification bid legal cover, it was reported that applications were submitted to the speaker's office demanding action against the 26 lawmakers. While visiting the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) headquarters — where he was widely misquoted by mainstream and legacy media as having filed a reference against the lawmakers — the speaker, while remaining vague about the reference's status, said the members' actions had violated their oath. At the time, he had said such MPAs, whether from the opposition or treasury benches, had no right to remain in the House. When asked in Islamabad whether he should have shown restraint, the speaker responded bluntly that his role was to maintain order in the House. He conceded the disqualification attempt was his own initiative. Referring to the oath violation, he said he would "fight for the honour of the Constitution" and that "whoever becomes a casualty in this fight would have only their fate to blame". Speaker Malik remained one of the most vocal proponents of disqualifying the involved members. It is pertinent to mention that The Express Tribune had earlier reported that legal experts did not see merit in the speaker's contention that members could be disqualified merely for disorderly conduct. The newspaper had also reported that the speaker had floated the idea of disqualification as a means to gain leverage over opposition lawmakers, using the threat as a smokescreen, particularly given the legal complications and consequences of such a move. Now, with his new position — asking his party members to first establish in court that a grave violation occurred before he can take cognisance — the speaker appears inconsistent with his earlier stance. It was revealed that by recording his view in writing, the speaker aimed to extricate himself from the controversy surrounding the disqualification reference. However, it was noted that the speaker had overplayed his hand. One source said that a provincial minister should have taken the lead in advocating for disqualification publicly to make it clear they were acting based on the Panama judgment.
