Military courts were set up four years ago for a period of two years by a Constitutional Amendment during the Nawaz Sharif regime in order to cope with the “extraordinary situation” following a wave of terrorism in the country. Two years later, after a consensus among the mainstream political parties, they were extended for another two years and lapsed recently. Now that the back of terrorism has been broken by the Pak army – which lost over 3000 gallant soldiers in the “war against terrorism” – we might legitimately ask what is the need to renew this covenant? Why should Pakistan stand out as the only South Asian country to continue trying civilians behind closed-doors while proudly proclaiming a safe and soft face to the world?
Although some democratic constitutions allow military courts to try civilians in states of warlike emergency – the fight against Taliban terrorism was one such situation – the general principle in democratic countries is to stay clear of them in the first place because they undermine the civilian notion of justice via “due process”. Their procedures are murky, there is no right to appeal in civilian courts and military judges are not required to be formally trained in law.
In Pakistan’s case, the “Anti-Terrorist” Courts — armed with procedural swiftness and diluted rules of evidence – were established precisely to avoid the need for military courts. But they failed to yield results because civilian prosecutors were ill-trained to collect and present evidence and there was no agency to protect witnesses and judges. So, instead of fixing them, we are going back to military courts as the easier solution.
The list of offences for which military courts can try civilians is long and overbearing. Particularly controversial and disturbing are clauses relating to certain ill-defined offenses which can be tried in such courts: “kidnapping for ransom”, “acting in any way to overawe the state or the ‘general public’”, “creating insecurity”, “providing or receiving funding for any such act”, etc. Indeed, some clauses are alike those governing Anti-Terrorist Courts, which makes them redundant unless the motive here is politically dubious.
In fact, the main reason for opposition to military courts by mainstream PPP, is embedded in the clause “providing or receiving funding” for any act that constitutes terrorism in this Act. This came to light when the Miltablishment formally proposed a political link between “corruption” and terrorism and started to target key “corrupt” figures in the PPP government in Sindh four years ago after obtaining constitutional protection to impose something akin to a state of siege of the elected government of the province. Before long, top PPP leaders, including ex-President Asif Zardari, fled the country, while others were dragged off to the ATCs or Military Courts. At that time, Mr Zardari was shrieking opposition to the military intervention but Nawaz Sharif was gung-ho about it.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Now Mr Sharif has come under the same boot himself. One would imagine, under the circumstances, that neither gentleman is tripping over himself to legitimize an extension of military courts for any length of time. But the truth is that neither the PPP nor the PMLN is gearing up to oppose a PTI move to breathe new life into the earlier amendments. Why is that so?
It is perfectly understandable why the PTI is fully backing the Miltablishment. It owes its accession to office in Islamabad and Punjab to the same institution and dare not oppose its main benefactor. The PPP and PMLN, however, find themselves gasping for air.
The PMLN is treading ever so softly because it can’t very well turn its back on a constitutional amendment that was originally tabled by it. It is the PPP that is making noises. The motive here can only be to bargain a lifeline for Mr Zardari in exchange for lending support to the amendment. In other words, whatever their formal objections for the sake of form, the constitutional amendment granting a new lease of life to military courts is likely to pass soon, possibly with some tightening up here and there.
The record of the “performance” of Military Courts of the last four years reveals that 733 cases were lodged, in which 284 terrorists were awarded the death sentence, of whom only 56 have since been executed, 192 were sentenced to Rigourous Imprisonment for Life, 2 were acquitted and 54 cases were dropped for unknown reasons. The backlog of the last four years is 185. Over 90 per cent of the accused were convicted exclusively on the basis of “confessions” obtained from them after they had “disappeared”. This is what tips the scales of “justice” and scares the living daylights of civilians under such a constitutional amendment.
There is no gainsaying the Miltablishment gets what it wants, sooner or later. If the civilians can trouble it to accept some fine points of departure in the amendment at hand, it will have been worth the effort to redress the balance.
Although some democratic constitutions allow military courts to try civilians in states of warlike emergency – the fight against Taliban terrorism was one such situation – the general principle in democratic countries is to stay clear of them in the first place because they undermine the civilian notion of justice via “due process”. Their procedures are murky, there is no right to appeal in civilian courts and military judges are not required to be formally trained in law.
In Pakistan’s case, the “Anti-Terrorist” Courts — armed with procedural swiftness and diluted rules of evidence – were established precisely to avoid the need for military courts. But they failed to yield results because civilian prosecutors were ill-trained to collect and present evidence and there was no agency to protect witnesses and judges. So, instead of fixing them, we are going back to military courts as the easier solution.
The list of offences for which military courts can try civilians is long and overbearing. Particularly controversial and disturbing are clauses relating to certain ill-defined offenses which can be tried in such courts: “kidnapping for ransom”, “acting in any way to overawe the state or the ‘general public’”, “creating insecurity”, “providing or receiving funding for any such act”, etc. Indeed, some clauses are alike those governing Anti-Terrorist Courts, which makes them redundant unless the motive here is politically dubious.
In fact, the main reason for opposition to military courts by mainstream PPP, is embedded in the clause “providing or receiving funding” for any act that constitutes terrorism in this Act. This came to light when the Miltablishment formally proposed a political link between “corruption” and terrorism and started to target key “corrupt” figures in the PPP government in Sindh four years ago after obtaining constitutional protection to impose something akin to a state of siege of the elected government of the province. Before long, top PPP leaders, including ex-President Asif Zardari, fled the country, while others were dragged off to the ATCs or Military Courts. At that time, Mr Zardari was shrieking opposition to the military intervention but Nawaz Sharif was gung-ho about it.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Now Mr Sharif has come under the same boot himself. One would imagine, under the circumstances, that neither gentleman is tripping over himself to legitimize an extension of military courts for any length of time. But the truth is that neither the PPP nor the PMLN is gearing up to oppose a PTI move to breathe new life into the earlier amendments. Why is that so?
It is perfectly understandable why the PTI is fully backing the Miltablishment. It owes its accession to office in Islamabad and Punjab to the same institution and dare not oppose its main benefactor. The PPP and PMLN, however, find themselves gasping for air.
The PMLN is treading ever so softly because it can’t very well turn its back on a constitutional amendment that was originally tabled by it. It is the PPP that is making noises. The motive here can only be to bargain a lifeline for Mr Zardari in exchange for lending support to the amendment. In other words, whatever their formal objections for the sake of form, the constitutional amendment granting a new lease of life to military courts is likely to pass soon, possibly with some tightening up here and there.
The record of the “performance” of Military Courts of the last four years reveals that 733 cases were lodged, in which 284 terrorists were awarded the death sentence, of whom only 56 have since been executed, 192 were sentenced to Rigourous Imprisonment for Life, 2 were acquitted and 54 cases were dropped for unknown reasons. The backlog of the last four years is 185. Over 90 per cent of the accused were convicted exclusively on the basis of “confessions” obtained from them after they had “disappeared”. This is what tips the scales of “justice” and scares the living daylights of civilians under such a constitutional amendment.
There is no gainsaying the Miltablishment gets what it wants, sooner or later. If the civilians can trouble it to accept some fine points of departure in the amendment at hand, it will have been worth the effort to redress the balance.