THE petitioners are quite helpless. Yet again, they are being expected to wait while the bench supposed to hear appeals against an earlier Supreme Court ruling on military courts is reconstituted because some of the counsels want more ‘senior judges’ to be hearing the matter. It bears noting that this was already the second bench to have heard the state’s appeals against the unanimous ruling issued by five judges last October, in which the court had held that trying civilians under the opaque military justice system has no justification under the country’s laws. Meanwhile, some 85 individuals — some of whom have been held for close to 10 months now — still have no clarity regarding their legal status.

It may be recalled that the now-disbanded bench had allowed military courts to issue judgements in cases where the accused were to be awarded shorter punishments. The ruling had led to 20 individuals being released prior to Eid after they were granted a ‘remission’ by the army chief. Though this had been seen as a kind of interim relief from the court, the decision was also criticised as it seemed to legitimise the trials that had been completed against these released individuals. The decision was not challenged, presumably in the hope of a more comprehensive ruling after Ramazan. However, it now seems that the remaining prisoners will continue to be deprived of their liberties without a verdict issued against them. At the heart of the matter is a question that affects the entire citizenry: should civilians ever be tried in secret, in military courts seen to ignore due process, for offences that pale in comparison to the serious crimes that are normally tried in civilian-run antiterrorism courts? When terrorists who murder and maim can get a trial under the country’s criminal justice system, what need is there for the establishment to get involved in dispensing justice to civilians accused of rioting and arson? Is the purpose to seek legal redress against the individuals accused of various crimes, or to make an example out of them whether or not the evidence brought against them can hold up under scrutiny in a ‘normal’ court of law? Five Supreme Court justices had settled these questions unanimously in October last year. It defies understanding why the appeals against their decision are still dragging on.

Published in Dawn, April 26th, 2024