News
Sunday, July 31, 2011
SC Registrar Office returns plea of Musharraf attack case convicts
* Petitioners challenged certain provisions of military law denying fair trial
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has raised objections on the petition against certain provisions of military laws, which violate Article 8 of the constitution, deny fundamental rights to citizens and fair trial.
The petitioners, Ghulam Sarwar Bhatti and Ikhlas Ahmed, detained in Faisalabad Central Jail, and Zubair Ahmed and Mushtaq Ahmad, confined in Rawalpindi Central Jail, are civilian convicts for alleged attempt on the life of General (r) Pervez Musharraf. They had filed petitions through Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry and made the federation as respondent through secretaries of law and justice and defence ministries.
The SC Registrar Office returned the petition by raising two objections as the petitioners were not locus standi and they were convicted persons, therefore, the applicants had no right to file a constitutional petition
Ikram Chaudhry, counsel for petitioners, told Daily Times that he had challenged the SC Registrar Office objections on the petition. He said that applicants were the citizens of Pakistan and they wanted that the apex court should hear their appeals against military court’s decisions.
He contended that the apex courts of several countries like the United States, United Kingdom and India had an authority to review military court’s decisions. The counsel also stated that certain provisions of the military laws were in violation of fundamental rights of citizens.
The petitioners had prayed for recommendations to the federal government to legislate for independent military tribunals and finally to re-examine all the lawsuits starting from the FB Ali case, through a larger bench of the apex court. They had also requested to re-examine constitutionally the sentence awarded to them. Former president Musharraf had been attacked on December 14, 2003, and then on December 25, 2003, near Jhanda Chichi Bridge in Chaklala.
Afterwards, the petitioners had been tried by a military court and awarded sentences. The petitioners’ counsel had contended that the military tribunals had, while denying relief to the petitioners under the law and constitution, exercised the jurisdiction erroneously.
He said that the cases might be re-examined on the basis of constitutional rights available to the public and the question of law raised in the constitutional petition relating to the armed forces. “Section 133 of the Army Act 1952 along with other provisions mentioned in the petition be declared ultra vires for being in negation of articles 2A, 4, 5, 9, 10, 10A and 25 of the constitution. These provisions also deny rights under articles 175 and 203 of the constitution negating role of an independent judiciary to every citizen.”
The counsel also argued that the Section 2(1)(d) introduced through amendment in 1967 by amending Ordinance III of 1967 (Defence Services Law Amendment Ordinance 1967) in the Pakistan Army Act 1952, Air Force Act 2(1)(dd), and Naval Ordinance 2(3) to bring civilians within the jurisdiction of military tribunals was ultra vires of the constitution.Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk