Dissenting view: Civil society questions military courts’ role
Ask the government to strengthen investigation and prosecution system
Members of the civil society questioned the structure of the special courts and if they were the most effective way to try terrorism cases. PHOTO: CREATIVE COMMONS
ISLAMABAD:
As the parliament approves the 21st constitutional amendment paving way for setting up of military courts to prosecute terrorists, civil society activists express their concern at the move and ask the government to reform and strengthen the investigation and prosecution systems.
Both houses of parliament approved the 21st Amendment Bill 2015 and the Pakistan Army Act Amendment Bill 2015 on Tuesday.
However, members of the civil society questioned the structure of the special courts and if they were the most effective way to try terrorism cases.
Under the amendment, the military courts, with the permission of federal courts, will be allowed to try any person claiming or known to have links with any terrorist group or organisation affiliated with religion or sect. Moreover, the federal government can also transfer pending cases to military courts.
Civil society activists are of the view that existing structures of investigation and prosecution should be strengthened and scientific methods of investigation should be adopted rather than outdated inhuman methods of torture and coercion.
They also suggest that better security and protection to witnesses, lawyers, and judges should be provided. The decision is all the more questionable as the Supreme Court itself is attempting to expedite cases of terrorism.
“Today is yet another sad day in Pakistan’s checkered constitutional history” said Tahira Abdullah, peace and human rights activist.
Speaking to The Express Tribune, Adullah said, “The 21st Constitutional Amendment is not a good omen for the future of democracy for which we have struggled and suffered so long and so hard”.
She said that the decision augurs ill for the dignity, independence and supremacy of the judiciary.
“We are informed that no appeal to high courts or to the Supreme Court will be possible after being sentenced by the military courts,” she expressed her apprehension.
“Not only do we have to confront terrorism but we will be confronted with a parliament that has weakened the rule of law,” Hina Jilani, an advocate of the Supreme Court and a human rights defender said.
“We do not have the capacity of good governance to confront such issues which could lead to loss of security, livelihood and prosperity,” said Jilani.
She further said that military courts were not necessary and were irrelevant in the fight against terrorism.
Human rights activist and Awami Workers Party vice-President Dr Farzana Bari criticised the government saying instead of removing the flaws in the existing structures it was handing over judicial powers to an institution that is not concerned with it. “Military courts are not solutions to terrorism,” she observed. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan also opposed the decision, stating that it was dismayed that all political parties supported this unfortunate decision.
In a statement last week the commission said the decision undermined the judiciary and showed lack of confidence in an independent and strong judicial system in the country. It must be noted that the superior judiciary has, several times in the past, ruled that military courts are unconstitutional.
The commission argues that trying civilians in military courts has always been a controversial issue and also opposed by the superior judiciary. The system of ‘speedy justice’ has never proved to be fair.
It also expressed the fear that political dissidents, particularly in Balochistan and Sindh, could become targets of military courts.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 7th, 2014.
As the parliament approves the 21st constitutional amendment paving way for setting up of military courts to prosecute terrorists, civil society activists express their concern at the move and ask the government to reform and strengthen the investigation and prosecution systems.
Both houses of parliament approved the 21st Amendment Bill 2015 and the Pakistan Army Act Amendment Bill 2015 on Tuesday.
However, members of the civil society questioned the structure of the special courts and if they were the most effective way to try terrorism cases.
Under the amendment, the military courts, with the permission of federal courts, will be allowed to try any person claiming or known to have links with any terrorist group or organisation affiliated with religion or sect. Moreover, the federal government can also transfer pending cases to military courts.
Civil society activists are of the view that existing structures of investigation and prosecution should be strengthened and scientific methods of investigation should be adopted rather than outdated inhuman methods of torture and coercion.
They also suggest that better security and protection to witnesses, lawyers, and judges should be provided. The decision is all the more questionable as the Supreme Court itself is attempting to expedite cases of terrorism.
“Today is yet another sad day in Pakistan’s checkered constitutional history” said Tahira Abdullah, peace and human rights activist.
Speaking to The Express Tribune, Adullah said, “The 21st Constitutional Amendment is not a good omen for the future of democracy for which we have struggled and suffered so long and so hard”.
She said that the decision augurs ill for the dignity, independence and supremacy of the judiciary.
“We are informed that no appeal to high courts or to the Supreme Court will be possible after being sentenced by the military courts,” she expressed her apprehension.
“Not only do we have to confront terrorism but we will be confronted with a parliament that has weakened the rule of law,” Hina Jilani, an advocate of the Supreme Court and a human rights defender said.
“We do not have the capacity of good governance to confront such issues which could lead to loss of security, livelihood and prosperity,” said Jilani.
She further said that military courts were not necessary and were irrelevant in the fight against terrorism.
Human rights activist and Awami Workers Party vice-President Dr Farzana Bari criticised the government saying instead of removing the flaws in the existing structures it was handing over judicial powers to an institution that is not concerned with it. “Military courts are not solutions to terrorism,” she observed. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan also opposed the decision, stating that it was dismayed that all political parties supported this unfortunate decision.
In a statement last week the commission said the decision undermined the judiciary and showed lack of confidence in an independent and strong judicial system in the country. It must be noted that the superior judiciary has, several times in the past, ruled that military courts are unconstitutional.
The commission argues that trying civilians in military courts has always been a controversial issue and also opposed by the superior judiciary. The system of ‘speedy justice’ has never proved to be fair.
It also expressed the fear that political dissidents, particularly in Balochistan and Sindh, could become targets of military courts.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 7th, 2014.