Military trials of civilians: A baffling adjournment

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has dampened the hopes of the petitioners and their attorneys who were impressing upon a six-member larger bench for an expeditious disposal of their petitions against trial of civilians in military courts.

The larger bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial took up a set of similar petitions on Thursday, challenging the trial of civilians in military court. And after the hearing, the case was postponed for an indefinite period.

It appeared that the chief justice was interested in concluding the case but some judges were not available for even one more day of hearing. Now, there is a discussion whether the term ‘like-minded’ is still relevant.

“It is quite a surprise for us that the matter will be adjourned a day after the bench declined to form a full court,” one of the counsel of the petitioners, told The Express Tribune.

During the hearing, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, one of the petitioners, urged the judges to expedite the proceedings, emphasizing that this case carried a significant "historical burden" on them.

Chief Justice Bandial revealed that he was prepared to continue the hearing, but some judges expressed their unavailability due to personal commitments.
He stated that they initially wanted to adjourn the matter for four weeks, but he will urge them to resume the hearing after two weeks.

The decision to postpone the near-completion hearing has sparked debate among various stakeholders. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan stated that he required a couple of hours to conclude his arguments, while the counsel for the petitioners expressed that they needed less than an hour for their rebuttal.

The final clarity on the situation will come with the written order by the bench, which declined the formation of a full court at the request of civil society members through lawyer Faisal Siddiqi.Some lawyers anticipate that Chief Justice Bandial will deliver the judgment on the trial of civilians in military courts before his retirement next month, a view supported by pro-Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyers. However, there are concerns about the Supreme Court's internal divisions and differences of opinion among the judges.

It is evident that the Supreme Court's functioning has been impacted due to these differences. The judges are facing a perception battle, and efforts to resolve the open display of differences seem lacking.

Lawyers emphasize that Chief Justice Bandial should work towards fostering unity within the institution before his retirement, as unity and trust among the judges are more crucial than any landmark judgment. They call for both sides to set aside their egos for the greater good of the institution.