Jurisdiction issue: SC rejects plea seeking army men’s trial in civil courts
Says the trial of serving army officials is held under Army Act 1952 in military court.
Says the trial of serving army officials is held under Army Act 1952 in military court. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The apex court’s two-judge bench on Wednesday rejected the Voice for Baloch Missing Persons’ (VBMP) plea to hold the trial of army officials, allegedly involved in enforced disappearance of Baloch people, in civilian courts instead of the military court.
“The trial of serving army officials is held under Army Act 1952 but aggrieved parties have the right of appeal against military courts’ rulings,” noted the head of the bench Justice Amir Hani Muslim.
“It has been noticed that military trial concludes early,” he said, adding that the ultimate jurisdiction in this matter was that of the Supreme Court, which could be approached to appeal against military courts decisions.
Justice Muslim also pointed out that the Balochistan government had itself decided to refer the case of two army officers to military court.
On Tuesday, Irfan Qadir, the counsel for Frontier Corps, had informed the court that the Balochistan government had agreed to refer cases of the said military officers to army for holding their trial under the Army Act 1952.
Earlier, the VBMP Chairman Nasrullah Baloch – who is regularly pursuing the case of missing Baloch people before the top court – told the Supreme Court that the Baloch people had given up hope and believed that the army officials’ trial would not reach any meaningful end if held in military courts.
Meanwhile, Balochistan’s Advocate General Nazimuddin Baloch told the bench that the provincial government had not decided whether to refer the cases of FC officials – involved in 12 enforced disappearances – to army or proceed against them under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
He said he had held three meetings with the FC’s attorney but things could not be finalised as chief secretary was out of the country. On the query of the bench, the AG said the chief secretary would return from abroad by the end of this month and he would be available for meeting in the first week of April.
The court directed the chief secretary and advocate general to hold meeting with the FC’s counsel on missing persons issue and submit report regarding the mode of military officials’ trial on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, the AG told the bench that four cases related to different missing persons – Zakir Majeed, Samiullah Mengal, Kabeer Ahmad, Attaullah, Mushtaq Rudhine and Asadullah – had been dismissed by the Balochistan High Court (BHC).
The VBMP’s Nasrullah Baloch requested the bench to take up the matter related to enforced disappearance of Zakir Majeed, whose sister Farzana Majeed had also appeared before the court.
The bench told him that according to the BHC’s decision, Zakir Majeed was an absconder, who after his release on bail on November 17, 2008, jumped his bail and did not appear in court. The bench, however, suggested it could consider the case, if the VBMP chairman challenged the BHC’s decision.
The VBMP chairman, referring to the case of a missing man Ali Asghar Bangash, also requested the bench to direct initiation of proceedings against army Brigadier Saddique. Justice Hani, however, rejected his request and said military would hold the trial of army officials.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2014.
The apex court’s two-judge bench on Wednesday rejected the Voice for Baloch Missing Persons’ (VBMP) plea to hold the trial of army officials, allegedly involved in enforced disappearance of Baloch people, in civilian courts instead of the military court.
“The trial of serving army officials is held under Army Act 1952 but aggrieved parties have the right of appeal against military courts’ rulings,” noted the head of the bench Justice Amir Hani Muslim.
“It has been noticed that military trial concludes early,” he said, adding that the ultimate jurisdiction in this matter was that of the Supreme Court, which could be approached to appeal against military courts decisions.
Justice Muslim also pointed out that the Balochistan government had itself decided to refer the case of two army officers to military court.
On Tuesday, Irfan Qadir, the counsel for Frontier Corps, had informed the court that the Balochistan government had agreed to refer cases of the said military officers to army for holding their trial under the Army Act 1952.
Earlier, the VBMP Chairman Nasrullah Baloch – who is regularly pursuing the case of missing Baloch people before the top court – told the Supreme Court that the Baloch people had given up hope and believed that the army officials’ trial would not reach any meaningful end if held in military courts.
Meanwhile, Balochistan’s Advocate General Nazimuddin Baloch told the bench that the provincial government had not decided whether to refer the cases of FC officials – involved in 12 enforced disappearances – to army or proceed against them under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
He said he had held three meetings with the FC’s attorney but things could not be finalised as chief secretary was out of the country. On the query of the bench, the AG said the chief secretary would return from abroad by the end of this month and he would be available for meeting in the first week of April.
The court directed the chief secretary and advocate general to hold meeting with the FC’s counsel on missing persons issue and submit report regarding the mode of military officials’ trial on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, the AG told the bench that four cases related to different missing persons – Zakir Majeed, Samiullah Mengal, Kabeer Ahmad, Attaullah, Mushtaq Rudhine and Asadullah – had been dismissed by the Balochistan High Court (BHC).
The VBMP’s Nasrullah Baloch requested the bench to take up the matter related to enforced disappearance of Zakir Majeed, whose sister Farzana Majeed had also appeared before the court.
The bench told him that according to the BHC’s decision, Zakir Majeed was an absconder, who after his release on bail on November 17, 2008, jumped his bail and did not appear in court. The bench, however, suggested it could consider the case, if the VBMP chairman challenged the BHC’s decision.
The VBMP chairman, referring to the case of a missing man Ali Asghar Bangash, also requested the bench to direct initiation of proceedings against army Brigadier Saddique. Justice Hani, however, rejected his request and said military would hold the trial of army officials.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2014.