Political parties are faced with the agonizing choice of whether or not to authorize another term for the contentious military courts for the trial of civilians suspected of involvement in terrorism.
It is a tough choice that all political parties would loved to have avoided and must have felt relieved as the 21st Amendment that provided for these courts lapsed last week after completing its stipulated life of two years. This was much like the quiet expiration of another special anti-terrorism legislation, the Protection of Pakistan Act (POPA) last year.
But all of a sudden, the government announced that it was considering introducing a constitutional amendment to continue with military courts for another fixed term. The government said it would hold consultations with political parties to develop consensus on the matter. The decision on introducing an amendment was taken at a national security meeting that was attended by both civilian and military leaders. Curiously, it came only after the 21st Amendment expired because of its inbuilt two-year clause. The government should have initiated a national consultation on the issue long before the sun set on military courts, had it been thinking of keeping them on.
The consultations formally kicked off during a meeting of the parliamentary parties in the chambers of the Speaker of the National Assembly on Tuesday. The first round was essentially exploratory and substantive discussions are expected at the second round scheduled for next Tuesday (Jan 17) when the parties are expected to present their positions.
The initial reaction from them has, however, been ambivalent. Almost all mainstream parties have praised the performance of the military courts, which handed down death penalties to 161 terrorism convicts and jail terms to another 116 over the course of two years. But their reservations over a continuation are linked to the government’s failure to sufficiently reform the judicial system so it is capable of fairly and expeditiously prosecuting terrorism cases. No one has talked about the demerits of military courts per se i.e. the absence of due process and fairness of trials.
Therefore, clearly a significant level of politicking is being done both by the government and the opposition parties on this issue.
By agreeing to a new term for military courts (if it happens), the government and at least two of the opposition parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf that are heading governments in Sindh and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, would be affixing a seal on the widely held perception that the civilian authorities have failed to implement the National Action Plan to fight terrorism. The PPP and PTI are also culpable because while the federal government failed to reform the system, the provincial governments had to do their bit in improving prosecution and forensics, which they have not so far.
One of the provisions of NAP, formulated in the aftermath of the 2014 Army Public School carnage, specifically called for revamping and reforming the criminal justice system. It needs to be remembered that the current case in favour of keeping military courts is based on the argument that the civilian system is still not ready to handle such cases.
The original line of reasoning behind the promulgation of the 21st Amendment and setting up military courts was also that “extraordinary circumstances” existed in the country that was busy fighting terrorism and that its legal system did not have the capacity to deal with terrorism cases. The government had contended that it needed two years to fixing those shortcomings at that point. This specification of the two-year timeframe not only helped the government then forge a near consensus in parliament that unanimously passed the legislation (with the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F abstaining), but also formed an important consideration for the Supreme Court while dismissing petitions against the legislation for military courts.
By using the same excuse now to continue with military courts, the government hardly sounds convincing. Skeptics say the government, which could not fulfill its promise of legal reforms in two years, should not be expected to do it when only a little over a year is left in its tenure.
The proponents of military courts contend that they have helped contain terrorism. This argument too is misleading because several other factors have contributed to a reduction in terrorist attacks. These primarily include the kinetic operations undertaken by the military in the tribal areas and the intelligence-based operations in the rest of the country. Furthermore, many of the cases tried by military courts date to the Swat Operation days and the people who were tried had been in military-run internment centers for years now. Some were even on the list of missing persons.
The military has so far been silent in this debate. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) only shared the opinion of the top brass about the military courts in a press statement at the Corps Commanders conference on Tuesday. It said that the commanders “appreciated the performance of the military courts during the prescribed duration, which resulted in a reduction of terrorism”. In another statement on the completion of their two-year term, the ISPR dismissed allegations against the trials and stressed that due course was observed. However, a simple assertion from the military public affairs office is not enough to rebut reservations over the process. It would be difficult to accept that the trials were fair as very few details have emerged of the proceedings held for the 276 people and the evidence presented against them. Families of convicts have, meanwhile, claimed that they did not even get copies of the verdicts.
One can simply hope that political parties will not become part of an egregious violation of the Constitution once again.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr
It is a tough choice that all political parties would loved to have avoided and must have felt relieved as the 21st Amendment that provided for these courts lapsed last week after completing its stipulated life of two years. This was much like the quiet expiration of another special anti-terrorism legislation, the Protection of Pakistan Act (POPA) last year.
But all of a sudden, the government announced that it was considering introducing a constitutional amendment to continue with military courts for another fixed term. The government said it would hold consultations with political parties to develop consensus on the matter. The decision on introducing an amendment was taken at a national security meeting that was attended by both civilian and military leaders. Curiously, it came only after the 21st Amendment expired because of its inbuilt two-year clause. The government should have initiated a national consultation on the issue long before the sun set on military courts, had it been thinking of keeping them on.
The consultations formally kicked off during a meeting of the parliamentary parties in the chambers of the Speaker of the National Assembly on Tuesday. The first round was essentially exploratory and substantive discussions are expected at the second round scheduled for next Tuesday (Jan 17) when the parties are expected to present their positions.
By agreeing to a new term for military courts (if it happens), the government and at least two of the opposition parties, the PPP and PTI in Sindh and KP would be affixing a seal on the widely held perception that the civilian authorities have failed to implement the National Action Plan to fight terrorism
The initial reaction from them has, however, been ambivalent. Almost all mainstream parties have praised the performance of the military courts, which handed down death penalties to 161 terrorism convicts and jail terms to another 116 over the course of two years. But their reservations over a continuation are linked to the government’s failure to sufficiently reform the judicial system so it is capable of fairly and expeditiously prosecuting terrorism cases. No one has talked about the demerits of military courts per se i.e. the absence of due process and fairness of trials.
Therefore, clearly a significant level of politicking is being done both by the government and the opposition parties on this issue.
By agreeing to a new term for military courts (if it happens), the government and at least two of the opposition parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf that are heading governments in Sindh and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, would be affixing a seal on the widely held perception that the civilian authorities have failed to implement the National Action Plan to fight terrorism. The PPP and PTI are also culpable because while the federal government failed to reform the system, the provincial governments had to do their bit in improving prosecution and forensics, which they have not so far.
One of the provisions of NAP, formulated in the aftermath of the 2014 Army Public School carnage, specifically called for revamping and reforming the criminal justice system. It needs to be remembered that the current case in favour of keeping military courts is based on the argument that the civilian system is still not ready to handle such cases.
The original line of reasoning behind the promulgation of the 21st Amendment and setting up military courts was also that “extraordinary circumstances” existed in the country that was busy fighting terrorism and that its legal system did not have the capacity to deal with terrorism cases. The government had contended that it needed two years to fixing those shortcomings at that point. This specification of the two-year timeframe not only helped the government then forge a near consensus in parliament that unanimously passed the legislation (with the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F abstaining), but also formed an important consideration for the Supreme Court while dismissing petitions against the legislation for military courts.
By using the same excuse now to continue with military courts, the government hardly sounds convincing. Skeptics say the government, which could not fulfill its promise of legal reforms in two years, should not be expected to do it when only a little over a year is left in its tenure.
The proponents of military courts contend that they have helped contain terrorism. This argument too is misleading because several other factors have contributed to a reduction in terrorist attacks. These primarily include the kinetic operations undertaken by the military in the tribal areas and the intelligence-based operations in the rest of the country. Furthermore, many of the cases tried by military courts date to the Swat Operation days and the people who were tried had been in military-run internment centers for years now. Some were even on the list of missing persons.
The military has so far been silent in this debate. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) only shared the opinion of the top brass about the military courts in a press statement at the Corps Commanders conference on Tuesday. It said that the commanders “appreciated the performance of the military courts during the prescribed duration, which resulted in a reduction of terrorism”. In another statement on the completion of their two-year term, the ISPR dismissed allegations against the trials and stressed that due course was observed. However, a simple assertion from the military public affairs office is not enough to rebut reservations over the process. It would be difficult to accept that the trials were fair as very few details have emerged of the proceedings held for the 276 people and the evidence presented against them. Families of convicts have, meanwhile, claimed that they did not even get copies of the verdicts.
One can simply hope that political parties will not become part of an egregious violation of the Constitution once again.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com and @bokhari_mr