Convicted brigadier wants to argue his case in civil court

Sentenced by a military court, ex-officer says he cannot be tried under army act.


Mudassir Raja January 22, 2013
Khan maintains that he was punished for raising concerns over the Abottabad operation on May 2. PHOTO: FILE

RAWALPINDI:


A former brigadier convicted by a military court for his alleged links with a banned outfit and instigating a rebellion in the army wants to argue his case in a civilian court.


Brig. (retd) Ali Khan convicted by a military court for having links with Hizbut Tahrir (HuT) on Monday filed an application with the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Rawalpindi bench to allow him to argue his case.

He maintained that he was punished for raising concerns over the Abottabad operation on May 2, 2011 in which Osama Bin Laden was killed by American forces in the corps commanders’ conference.



Col (retd) Inamur Rehman, who is representing the convicted brigadier, informed The Express Tribune that Brig Khan had maintained that he was arrested in May 2011 and tried under the Army Act even though it was no longer applicable to him.

Replying to a question, Rehman said there were precedents in which the superior judiciary had accepted applications of convicted persons for arguing their cases in civil court.

The defence ministry issued a notification holding his retirement in abeyance to enable military authorities to try him in a field general court martial, said the lawyer.



The application will be taken up next week by the LHC along with a pending petition challenging the military trial of the officer, he added.

Last August, a military court convicted Brig. Khan and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Major Inayat Aziz and Major Iftikhar were sentenced for 18 months, Major Sohail Akbar for three years and Major Jawad Baseer for two years for their links with HuT.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2013. 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ