In partnership with
SC QUESTIONS ‘SELECTIVE MILITARY TRIALS’ OF MAY 9 SUSPECTS Friday, 10 January, 2025 I 9 Rajabul Murajjab, 1446
g
Rs 20.00 | Vol XV No 185 I 8 Pages I Lahore Edition
JUSTICE MANDOKHAIL SEEKS EXPLANATION g JUSTICE MAZHAR NOTES ALL SUSPECTS OF PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO BOOKED UNDER SIMILAR FIRS YET SOME TRIED DETERMINE JURISDICTION OF CASES IN MILITARY COURTS, OTHERS FACED ATCS
T
g
Profit
JUSTICE AFGHAN DEMANDS CLARITY ON PROCESS FOR TAKING SUSPECTS INTO MILITARY CUSTODY ISLAMABAD
STAFF REPORT
HE Supreme Court’s constitutional bench raised critical questions about the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 events, specifically the basis for sending certain suspects to military courts while others are being tried in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs). Seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justices – Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, resumed the hearing the intra-
court appeal against the trial of civilians in military courts. During the proceedings, Ministry of Defence counsel Khawaja Haris argued that the interpretation of Article 233, which pertained to the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency, was incorrect when the decision to conduct military trials for civilians was made. He emphasised that fundamental rights could only be suspended under an emergency, as was the case during the tenure of Gen Pervez Musharraf. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar countered, stating that this case does not involve the suspension of fundamental rights. He pointed out that during Musharraf’s era, rights were suspended due to a lack of the right to appeal.
Justice Aminuddin Khan raised the issue of whether an emergency had been declared in this case, prompting Justice Mazhar to clarify that the suspension of fundamental rights required an emergency to be in place. Justice Musarrat Hilali also pointed out that, in the present case, the fundamental rights of the accused were not suspended, nor was an emergency declared when the individuals were taken into military custody. Justice Musarrat Hilali asked who determined the jurisdiction for trials in military courts and how the differentiation was made between cases that proceed in ATCs and those sent to military courts. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
noted that all suspects from the May 9 incidents were booked under similar FIRs and questioned why some were subjected to military trials while others faced ATCs. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan asked whether there was any ATC order transferring suspects to military courts and demanded clarity on the process for taking suspects into military custody. Justice Jamal Mandokhail sought an explanation of the principles and procedures followed to determine the jurisdiction of cases. He also remarked, “An accused is acquitted in an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), but then sentenced by a military court. Is there any special evidence presented in military courts that isn’t considered in civilian courts?”
evaluated four years ago, without a competitive bidding process. However, these firms lack experience in container tracking and do not possess Container Surveillance Devices (CSDs), a critical tool for preventing pilferage. In a written statement, FBR Director General for Transit Trade Mohsin Rafique confirmed the firms were chosen because they had been previously evaluated and deemed eligible. However, Rafique admitted that these firms specialise in vehicle tracking, not container monitoring. “CSD is an expensive device which is not available with any company other than TPL,” he stated.
The new contractors have been authorised to install Prime Mover Devices (PMDs) on vehicles, which track vehicle movement but do not monitor containers directly. Despite acknowledging these limitations, the FBR allowed the firms to set up control rooms at the Old Custom House in Karachi and commence tracking operations under new standard operating procedures (SOPs). The new SOPs, issued on December 27, require additional human resources from Customs Enforcement to monitor bonded cargo at the origin and along transit routes. TPL Trakker, the previous licensee, refuted FBR’s allegations of
non-performance. The company stated its IT system was only temporarily disrupted due to a cyberattack in mid2024 and has since been restored. TPL emphasized that its hybrid tracking devices, equipped with both GSM and satellite capabilities, ensured reliable container tracking. Transporters have expressed concerns over increased costs, as they now have to pay Rs20,000 to install PMDs on vehicles and Rs5,278 per trip to the new contractors. Additionally, industry stakeholders have criticized the FBR’s decision to relax financial and technical eligibility requirements for tracking firms.
FBR starts human monitoring for Afghan transit cargo PROFIT
MONITORING DESK
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has temporarily replaced satellite tracking of containers carrying imported goods to Afghanistan with human surveillance, sparking concerns over smuggling risks and efficiency gaps. According to a news report, this shift follows the abrupt termination of the license of TPL Trakker, the company that had been monitoring container movements through GSM and satellite since 2013. The task of monitoring has now been handed over to four firms, selected based on technical qualifications
Global parliamentary group to observe Imran Khan’s trials: lawyer ISLAMABAD
STAFF REPORT
The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), a global parliamentary body, will send its representative to observe the trials of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan being carried out in different cases. Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry, the counsel for incarcerated Imran Khan, told a private TV that he discussed the exprime minister’s cases with an official of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) following which it decided to send its trial observer. The IPU, of which Pakistan is a member, facilitates parliamentary diplomacy and empowers parliaments and parliamentarians to promote peace, democracy and sustainable development around the world. “The IPU representative was briefed on the judicial proceedings in the £190 million case,” said Chaudhry in his statement. “They were also informed about the Toshakhana cases.” He added, “I provided the IPU representative with details regarding the penalties in the Toshakhana cases, as well as the legal and constitutional flaws and the violation of the right to a fair trial.” Chaudhry said the IPU representative was also briefed on the events of May 9 and the GHQ case. “In November 2023, an IPU trial observer attempted to visit Adiala Jail but was denied permission.” This is not the first time that someone from outside Pakistan has talked about Khan’s imprisonment or cases, as parliamentarians from the UK and US have also sought the former prime minister’s release. Khan, who is the only prime minister to be ousted through a no-confidence vote, has been in jail since August 2023, even though all four convictions handed down to him have either been suspended or overturned. A number of British parliamentarians in July last year called for the release of the former premier, while over 60 Democratic lawmakers from the US House of Representatives wrote to President Joe Biden in October 2024, urging him to use Washington’s leverage with Pakistan to secure the release of Khan.