ISLAMABAD: Rights activist Asma Jahangir has approached the Supreme Court against a Dec 9, 2015 Peshawar High Court verdict upholding a sentence of life imprisonment awarded by a military court in a case of terrorism.

The petition has been filed on behalf of Sher Alam, uncle of Jamilur Rehman who was taken into custody by security personnel in 2014 but his detention was not acknowledged.

Mr Alam found out about his nephew’s confinement when the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-based daily Aaj reported on Sept 22 that a military court had convicted him and the sentence had been confirmed by the army chief.

He filed an appeal against the conviction before the high court and said the convict should be allowed to meet his family at the internment centre where he was being kept. The visitation rights of the accused were allowed but the court rejected the plea against the sentence.

On Dec 7, the Supreme Court suspended the capital punishment awarded to two convicts by military courts and, on a petition moved by Ms Jahangir, decided to constitute a larger bench to determine whether the right to fair trial had been denied.

The court summoned complete record of the conviction handed down to Haider Ali and Qari Zahir Gul, but the matter was referred back to Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.

The fresh appeal regrets that the high court had taken a general view of the fact that the trial of Jamil had remained confidential and chose not to consider the plea of coram non judice, want of jurisdiction and mala fide, including malice in law, raised by the petitioner.

The petition argued that the high court had dismissed the matter despite the fact that the non-availability of trial record was evident since the entire proceedings had been conducted in-camera.

Moreover, the alleged denial of legal representation to the accused was also obvious because he was not allowed to make any claim, nor was he present during the trial.

The material on the record had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to show that the convict was a member of a terrorist group, the appeal argued, adding that no material was shown during the trial that might have met the condition.

Similarly, no evidence to prove his involvement in terrorism-related charges was recorded in the presence of the accused and no opportunity was granted to cross-examine any witness.

The convict was arrested and kept under detention under the Action (In Aid of Civil Power) Regulation 2011, whereas the trial was held a year later by the military court, the petition stated.

Thus, the judgment recorded by the high court was not in accordance with the directives and observations of the Supreme Court in its Aug 8 verdict which held that any order passed, decision taken or sentence awarded by the military courts would be subject to judicial review by the high courts and the Supreme Court on the grounds of being coram non judice, without jurisdiction or suffering from mala fides, including malice in law.

Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2016