Rawalpindi, April 2: The detained brigadier on Monday boycotted the proceedings of the military court after he was allegedly denied access to his counsel.

The brigadier is facing charges of sedition and having links with the proscribed outfit Hizbut Tahrir (HuT).

Lt-Col (retired) Inamur Rahim, the brigadier’s counsel, told Dawn that the detained brigadier Ali Khan on Monday informed in writing the field general court martial (FGCM) that he would not appear before it as he had been denied access to his counsel and also was not given the required documents.

The brigadier had demanded the military authorities to provide him letter of the federal government that held in abeyance his retirement order in July last year, advocate Rahim added.

He claimed that Brig. Khan told the military court to proceed with his trial in absentia and that unless he would be given access to the lawyer of his choice he would not appear before them.

He said that Brig Khan on Sunday telephoned him and called him for consultation prior to his proceedings on Monday at Chaklala garrison.

When Rahim tried to enter into the garrison, the security staff stopped him and informed him that his entry was not allowed and asked him to wait for the orders of the military authorities.

He then contacted Brig Khan and told him about the situation. The brigadier replied that the military authorities had planned to replace him with Col Khizer, a serving officer, to defend his case from now onward.

According to him, the denial of legal counsel’s access to detained brigadier was a clear violation of law.

However, Brigadier (retied) Wasif Khan Niazi, former judge advocate general of the army, told Dawn that under the Rules 82 and 87 of Pakistan Army Act (PAA), there was no provision for providing a counsel of his choice to the accused person.

However, in order to ensure justice, generally, the accused is allowed access to the lawyer of his choice, he said.

For the court martial, the military authorities also designate an officer for the defence of an accused because he can easily coordinate with other departments of the army, the former judge said.

The authorities can allow both the defending officer and a civilian for the defence of an accused but when they believe that the civilian counsel is hampering the proceeding in anyway, they can disassociate him at any stage for timely conclusion of the proceedings, he maintained.

Since there is no provision of civilian counsel in the PAA, therefore, disassociating a civilian counsel from any of the case being heard by the FGCM could not be declared as illegal as the convening authority had already designated a serving officer for the defence of the accused, he added.