The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench continued hearings on intra-court appeals challenging the annulment of military trials for civilians.
Civil society lawyer Faisal Siddiqui concluded his arguments, emphasizing that in the U.S., both parties have the right to propose judgments at the end of a case.
He suggested alternatives to court-martial proceedings.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that punishment should be given regardless of who commits the crime, questioning the significance of whether the trial takes place in a military or civilian court.
In response, Siddiqui argued that there is a significant difference, as one trial is civilian and the other is military, and only cases posing a direct threat to national security should be tried in military courts. He noted that the May 9 cases mostly involve charges of vandalism.
Additional Attorney General informed the court that out of 105 individuals convicted by military courts, 39 have been released while 66 remain in prison.
Meanwhile, lawyer Abid Zuberi, representing petitioner Bushra Qamar, began his arguments, pointing out that the Attorney General had earlier mentioned legislation granting the right to appeal.
Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the Attorney General could provide an undertaking not backed by law. Zuberi responded that the Attorney General represented the government’s stance.
The hearing was adjourned until Wednesday, with Abid Zuberi set to continue his arguments.
