Military courts revival: Double whammy for govt in NA

PPP opposes, JUI-F objects to new proposed law

ISLAMABAD: The government faced double whammy in parliament on Friday when a law it has proposed for the revival of military courts was opposed by not just the main opposition party but also by one of its key allies.

Law Minister Zahid Hamid introduced two constitutional amendment bills: The 28th Amendment Bill-2017 and the Pakistan Army Amendment Bill-2017 in the National Assembly. The first bill seeks to restore military courts, while the second is aimed at enabling trial of terrorism-related cases under the Pakistan Army Act 1952.



Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s eponymous faction of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) refused to support the first bill after objecting to its diction, while the PPP opposed it altogether. The two bills were adopted by the house notwithstanding.

Moving the bills, Hamid said that in 2015, parliament had passed two bills: The 21st (Amendment) Bill, 2015 and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Bill, 2015, empowering the military courts to try hardcore criminals. “These steps have yielded positive results,” he added.

The country is still passing through extraordinary circumstances and facing several challenges; therefore, continuation of these measures has become necessary, he added. Under these new bills, the steps taken in 2015 would get an extension.

The 21st (Amendment) Bill, 2015 seeks to amend Article 175 of the Constitution and proposes a new clause which states: “Provided that the provisions of this Article shall have no application to the trial of persons under any of the Acts mentioned at Serial No.6 and 7 of sub-part III of Part 1 of the First Schedule, who claim, or are known, to belong any terrorist group or organization misusing the name of the religion or a sect or commit grave and violent act of terrorism against the state.”

The bill explains that in this proviso, the expression ‘sect’ means a sect of religion and doesn’t include any religion or political party regulated under the Political Parties Order, 2002.



Speaking on a point of order, the JUI-F chief said terrorism was undoubtedly a big challenge, which has created a sense of insecurity among people. Having said that, terrorism has no religion, tribe, sect or nationality. “Attributing terrorism to a particular religion, sect or even Islamic seminaries (madrassas) cannot be justified,” he added.



The politico-religious cleric said the military courts had been constituted for two years after amending the Army Act, 1952 but no arrangements have been put in place for the protection of the civilian institutes which dispense justice.

The fresh wave of terrorism, which has seen deadly suicide bombings in Lahore, Sehwan and Charsadda give an impression that terrorism has not been eliminated yet, the cleric said.

All laws should be non-discriminatory and applicable across the board, he said. However, this bill apparently targets only religious people. “Who had allowed this cancer [militant group] to metastasize right under the nose of the state?” he asked expecting his fellow lawmakers knew who he was referring to. “When the cancer metastasized, the religion and sects started to be blamed and punished,” he added. Summing up his comments, the Maulana said his party could not support the bill in its present form.

Dr Azra Fazal Pechuho of the PPP endorsed the Maulana’s claim that the bill was ‘discriminatory in nature’. She said her party believed the tenure of the military courts should not be beyond one year.  She also demanded debate over the proposed law.

MQM lawmaker Shaikh Salahuddin said the PML-N government’s remaining tenure was one and half year; therefore, the incumbent parliament should make laws for this period.

Earlier  PPP and PTI lawmakers staged a walkout from the session in protest against the comments of PML-N MP Mian Javed Latif, who on Thursday called PTI chief Imran Khan a ‘traitor’ on floor of the house.

Before walking out of the house, PTI’s Dr Arif Alvi asked how the ruling party lawmakers would react if such a statement was passed against their leadership. He demanded suspension of Lateef’s membership.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 11^th, 2017.