Imran had previously claimed that there was a plan to try him in a military court over countrywide protests that erupted last year after his arrest in a graft case.
He had also said that arrested former intelligence chief Gen (retired) Faiz Hameed was being forced to turn approver against him to pave the way for his trial in a military court in May 9 cases.
Officials of the federal and the PML-N-ruled Punjab government have issued contradictory statements on whether the process to hold the former premier’s military trial was under way.
A recent statement by military spokesperson Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry also hinted at the possibility of Imran’s military trial as “under military law, anyone who uses individuals subject to the Army Act for personal or political gain […] will be subject to the law taking its course”.
Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb took up today Imran’s petition to pre-empt such a scenario.
The petition had been filed last week under Article 199 of the Constitution, according to which a high court may take up a matter when “no other adequate remedy is provided by law”.
Advocate Ali Uzair Bhandari appeared as Imran’s counsel, while Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Azmat Bashir Tarrar was present as the state counsel on behalf of Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan.
Seeking clarification from the federal government on whether Imran’s military trial was under consideration, Justice Aurangzeb adjourned the hearing till September 16.
Countrywide protests erupted on May 9 last year after the paramilitary Rangers whisked away Imran from the IHC in the Al-Qadir Trust case.
While the protests were underway, social media was flooded with footage of rioting and vandalism at various spots, including the Lahore Corps Commander’s residence and General Headquarters, the army’s head office in Rawalpindi.
The already imprisoned PTI founder was “arrested” in related cases on July 14 — just a day after he and his wife Bushra Bibi had been apprehended in a new Toshakhana case, following their acquittal in the Iddat case.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, Bhandari informed the court that top government officials — referring to government spokesperson for legal affairs Barrister Aqeel Malik — stated that Imran would be taken into military custody.
“All those are just political statements, nothing else,” Justice Aurangzeb remarked, to which the lawyer replied that if they were political, then formulating his arguments was “easier”.
Bhandari highlighted that a “top military official [Gen Sharif] has also given this statement”.
To this as well, Justice Aurangzeb replied: “What he said, too, was a political statement.”
Imran’s counsel asked the judge to include it in the court order if it was a political statement.
Justice Aurangzeb then ordered AAG Tarrar to seek clarification from AGP Awan on the government’s stance on whether or not Imran would be tried under military laws.
When the hearing resumed after a short break, the judge reiterated that the government should submit its response to the query by September 16 (Monday).
“Ministers have given threats to the PTI founder of a military trial. The PTI founder is a civilian,” Justice Aurangzeb observed.
“A civilian’s military trial is a cause of concern for the petitioner and the court,” he emphasised.
In October 2023, a five-member Supreme Court (SC) bench had declared the military trials of civilians arrested in the wake of the May 9 protests to be null and void. However, the widely praised ruling was later suspended by in a 5-1 majority verdict.
During the hearing, Justice Aurangzeb noted that according to Imran’s lawyer, Inter-Services Public Relations Director General Gen Sharif had made the statement of Imran’s trial.
“If this is the case, then a clear stance should be given by the federation,” the judge stressed.
“If we say today that ‘there is no [trial] right now’ but then you come to us tomorrow with an order of military trial, what will happen then?” he wondered.
AAG Tarrar requested the court to first decide on the objections raised on Imran’s petition. At this, the judge said he was removing the objections raised by the IHC registrar’s office.
Justice Aurangzeb recalled that the apex court’s ruling from last year on civilians’ military trials was in the field.
“Answer whether the matter of the PTI founder’s military trial was under consideration. If there is nothing as such, then the petition will become infructuous.
“[However], if there is anything as such under consideration, then we will hear this case and decide on it,” the judge asserted.
Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till September 16.
http://dlvr.it/TD8KzV
Comments
Post a Comment