ISLAMABAD

ISLAMABAD: Justice Musarat Hilali, a member of the Supreme Court’s seven-judge constitutional bench, remarked on Friday that an army chief was forced to leave the country by turning off lights of the airport, and a martial law was imposed in the country consequently, but even then the case was not tried in a military court.

The constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, was hearing the federation’s intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the apex court judgment, declaring trial of May-9 suspects in military courts unconstitutional. Other members of the bench included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.

Justice Hilali observed that at the time of that incident, the plane had little fuel but it was put to risk. She recalled the defence ministry counsel Khawaja Haris had given an example that military trials were conducted in America also. “If such a trial is held in another country, who is the judge there,” Justice Hilali asked, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that all over the world, only officers sit on court martial.

Khawaja Haris submitted that the officers who sit on the court martial possess trial experience. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, however, asked the counsel that Justice Hilali was asking whether those officers had legal qualifications?

At this, Justice Musarat Hilali said if she could ask the question herself.

Khawaja Haris, however, submitted that hijacking was not mentioned as a crime in the Army Act; hence, there was no military court trial in plane hijacking case. The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had reviewed the case and held that there was enough fuel left in the plane.

Justice Aminuddin Khan then remarked, “Let’s move on”, adding that the difference had become clear on that point.

Justice Musarat Hilali, however, put another question to the counsel that if a military aircraft was hijacked, then where will the trial take place?

She observed that in the FIRs of May 9, all provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) were mentioned. “I don’t know how the military trial was conducted on these provisions,” Justice Hilali added.

The additional attorney general, representing the federation, however, submitted that the military courts took only those 105 accused whose presence at the crime scene was proven, but the number of accused was around five thousand.