The trial of May 9 suspects in military courts has been completed: Attorney General

The Attorney General told the Supreme Court on Monday that the proceedings against all the persons have been completed and the verdicts are pending 'but the verdicts have not yet been pronounced due to the injunction of the Supreme Court.'

During the hearing on the appeals against the annulment of the trials of civilians (civilians) in the military courts , the Attorney General told the Supreme Court on Monday that the trial of the accused involved in the May 9 incidents in the military courts has been completed and the verdicts have been handed down. are preserved but have not been pronounced yet due to the injunction of the Supreme Court.'

The appeals were heard by a six-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan. Justice Aminuddin Khan inquired from the Attorney General that 'has any of the accused been released or can it be released? Because you said some cases have been acquitted, some have completed their sentences.'

 Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan told the court that 'there are some suspects whose arrest period will be considered in the sentence, because of the Supreme Court's injunction, acquittal decisions could not be made.'

Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer of the accused, said on this occasion that there was no prohibition on acquittal.

Justice Aminuddin Khan told the Attorney General that 'the accused who can be acquitted should be acquitted and the rest of the legal battle will continue. The real goal is to acquit those who can be acquitted.'

The Supreme Court asked the attorney general for a summary of the decisions preserved in the military courts and said that 'how many accused may be acquitted and how many may not be informed.'

Directing the Attorney General to submit all the details by March 28, the court said that the details of the accused who are to be given lesser sentences should also be provided. '

What else happened at the hearing?

When the hearing started on Monday, the lawyer of former Justice Jawad S Khawaja once again objected to the bench that the bench should have been a larger bench of nine members instead of six.

Jawad S. Khawaja's lawyer Ahmed Hussain said that in this case, the impression should not be given that the decision was based on the composition of the bench, the question should not remain that if there was a nine-member bench, the decision would have been different. It is a matter of credibility, the court asked the committee to form a nine-member bench.

Lawyer Khawaja Ahmad Hussain further said that '103 accused are in custody, their families want to join the court proceedings, the court should allow the families to watch the hearing.'

Justice Aminuddin said that the courtroom is full, where will they sit? There is no objection to coming to the court, let's look into their case.'

In the hearing held on January 29 of this year, the bench was also objected to, on which the bench was broken and the Supreme Court said in the order that the decision to declare the trials of civilians in military courts invalid will remain suspended, a three-member bench. Judges Committee to constitute a new larger bench to hear intra-court appeals.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government's decision to withdraw the appeal 

When the trials of civilians in military courts were annulled, the provinces, including the federation, filed appeals. But in today's hearing, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government requested to withdraw the appeals filed against the annulment of the trial of the civilians in the military courts. The lawyer of the provincial government presented the resolution of the provincial cabinet in the court and said that they want to withdraw the intra-court appeals.

On this, the court said that 'the cabinet cannot withdraw appeals on the resolution, it would be appropriate to file a formal application to withdraw the appeals.'

What was the decision to annul the trial of civilians in military courts?

On October 23 last year, the Supreme Court gave a reserved verdict on the petitions filed against the trial of the civilians arrested for their involvement in the May 9 violent protests in the military courts, in which the trial of the civilians in the military courts was nullified.

The judgment said that Section 59(4) of the Army Act is also declared null and void.

The case was heard by a five-member larger bench headed by Justice Ejazul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Mazahir Naqvi and Justice Ayesha Malik.

The Supreme Court's 1-4 majority decision said that all 103 people in military custody will not be tried in military courts, while Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with the majority decision.

Conditional permission for trial of civilians   

On November 17 last year, the federal government, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Law and the provincial governments had challenged the Supreme Court's decision not to prosecute civilians in military courts and to declare the trial null and void. In the appeals, the position was adopted that the decision of the Supreme Court of October 23 is against the constitution and the law, so it should be declared null and void.

The Supreme Court on December 13 gave a conditional verdict on the intra-court appeals against the annulment of the trial of the civilians by the military courts, saying that the trial of the civilian in the military courts will continue but the military courts will not give a final decision on the trial until the appeals are decided. .

A six-member bench headed by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood heard the intra-court appeals related to military courts in the Supreme Court. The six-member bench included Justice Aminuddin, Justice Muhammad Ali, Justice Hasan Azhar, Justice Musrat Hilali and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan. The court decision was given with a ratio of five to one, while Justice Musrat Hilali disagreed with the decision.