LAHORE: Police will go for a polygraph and photogrammatic test of PTI founder Imran Khan in connec-tion with the May 9 cases.
The Anti-Terrorism Court has directed Barrister Salman Safdar to consult Imran Khan and appear with instructions.
The police approached court through the prosecution, seeking permission for the tests.
In the petition, the prosecution stated that various tests, including a polygraph, are necessary for the investigation. However, Imran Khan’s lawyer opposed the plea, calling it a malicious move filed after two years.
The court adjourned the hearing until May 14.
Earlier, The Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench on Monday reserved its verdict on the appeals against the decision to declare the trial of civilians in military courts null and void, saying it would an-nounce the verdict later this week.
The development came as the CB resumed hearing a case pertaining to the military trials and the sub-sequent sentencing of civilians for their role in attacks on army installations during the riots that fol-lowed ex-premier Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023.
The CB resumed hearing a set of 38 intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal and provincial governments as well as Shuhada Forum Balochistan, among others, against the widely-praised Octo-ber 2023 ruling by a five-judge bench that unanimously declared that trying the accused civilians in mili-tary courts violated the Constitution.
The bench — led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan — is reviewing whether the trial of civilians in military courts is constitutional or not. During the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared as the state counsel.
TV analyst Hafeezullah Niazi, father of Hassaan Niazi who was among those convicted by military courts over the riots, also attended the hearing.
As the bench reserved its verdict on the long-standing case, Justice Aminuddin said the court will issue its short order on the decision this week. At the outset of today’s hearing, AGP Awan said he would begin his arguments by detailing what happened on May 9, 2023.
“Our country is in a state of war almost all year round,” he said. “Army installations were attacked un-der a well-thought-out plan; on May 9, 49 places were attacked from 3pm onwards,” he said.
He noted that a prime minister had been hanged in Pakistan — referring to the hanging of ex-PM Zulf-ikar Ali Bhutto — but even then, there was no such protest. “No political party had attacked the army in the past.” The attorney general further referenced Pakistan’s political history, saying that all parties had been banned during the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD).
“The entire MRD leadership was in chains — Asghar Khan was under house arrest for three and a half years,” the AGP said. “Even during this time, no one took a step like people did on May 9.”
“Even if this was a reaction to May 9, it cannot be allowed; ours is not an ordinary country,” the AGP said. “Due to geography, we face a lot of threats.”
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the question before the court was not about whether a crime was committed, saying: “You come to the appeal, tell us about the appeal.”
As he continued his arguments, AGP Awan said that the army took departmental action for negligence in the Jinnah House attack.
“Three senior officers were retired without pension and benefits, including a lieutenant general, a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel,” he said.
“Dissatisfaction was expressed with the performance of 14 officers, dislike and distrust mean that they cannot get any further promotion,” the AGP said.
To this, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the army had initiated criminal proceedings against any ar-my officer.
The attorney general said that criminal action would have been taken only when a crime had been committed, noting that departmental action had been taken for not stopping the incidents of May 9.
“The Army Act is clear that departmental action will also be accompanied by criminal punishment,” Jus-tice Mandokhail replied.
AGP Awan then said that he would present arguments on May 9, as well as the July 21 decision and appeal.
“There were 23 incidents in Punjab, eight in KP, seven in Sindh and one in Balochistan. General Head-quarters, Lahore, Mianwali Air Base, and ISI offices were attacked.
“All the incidents on May 9 were not accidental — the entire corps was inactive from 5:30pm to 9pm. If there was an external aggression on Lahore on May 9, it could not have been responded to,” the AGP said.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that at the time of Bhutto’s execution, people were making ar-rests and people set themselves on fire and self-immolated. “No one set property on fire at that time.”
The attorney general was in agreement, saying that his father himself had faced cases as a political ac-tivist yet it never occurred to anyone to damage the property by burning it.
Justice Hilali asked whether the gate of Jinnah House was broken open or if someone had opened it from inside. “If someone opened it from inside, it would be a crime of collusion,” she added.
The AGP said he would check about it and then apprise the court.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether what happened on May 9 was done with the intention of commit-ting a crime.
“Was the intention to register a protest or to attack? Maybe the intention was to protest but the mat-ter got out of hand. It should not have gone beyond the limit but it did,” Justice Mandokhail said.
“What happened on May 9 was a crime,” AGP Awan asserted.
Here, Justice Afghan told the attorney general that he had gone down the wrong path.
“We did not allow anyone to talk about the merits of the May 9 incident. Talking about the merits will affect the cases in the trial and appeal. If we go into the details of May 9, many questions will arise.
“Many questions arise that you may not be able to answer, such as whether the general who retired without pension was the Lahore Corps Commander,” Justice Afghan said.
AGP Awan responded in the affirmative that a Lahore Corps Commander was retired without pension benefits. When asked if the Lahore Corps Commander appeared as a witness before the trial court, the attorney general said the court would find out once the appeal is filed.
The state lawyer then asserted that he was not debating on the “merits of May 9” events but answer-ing the questions raised.
At this point, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Hilali remarked that they were asking questions important for the country’s future. Upon Justice Hilali asking how many times the Army Act had been amended, AGP Awan replied that changes had been made to it “multiple times”.
“Amending the Constitution is a difficult task but the 26th Amendment was introduced. Why was the Army Act not amended? What is in the Official Secrets Act that even easy amendments are not intro-duced in it?” Justice Hilali asked.
AGP Awan then informed the court that so far, 86 individuals have filed appeals against their military court convictions. “Others will be given time to file an appeal,” he added.
Upon the attorney general saying that out of 45 minutes he had sought for arguments, he had allotted 20 minutes for Justice Mandokhail’s queries, the judge said: “I have no issue of my own. I am [only] thinking of the country’s future.”
Here, the AGP requested the bench to include an “observation” in its final ruling on the right to appeal of the convicted persons.
He recalled that there was a previous SC ruling advising the parliament to legislate to allow the exten-sion in an army chief’s tenure. Justice Mazhar then pointed out that in that particular case, the parlia-ment was given clear directions to enact the legislation within six months.
“Once a law is nullified, then the question of appeal does not arise,” Justice Aminuddin observed.
At this point during the hearing, Niazi came to the rostrum, saying he wanted to speak for five minutes.
He said: “My son Hassaan Niazi was sentenced to 10 years in prison. It was upsetting to hear praises that [defence ministry’s lawyer] Khawaja Harris did of military courts.
“Whoever violated a law should be punished,” Niazi added, recalling that the Prime Minister House, Parliament House and a radio station’s building were “attacked by mobs” in 2014.
“There was a plan to force the prime minister out of the PM House [but] those cases were heard in civilian courts,” Niazi contended.
He further argued that the crimes of the May 9 riots “could not be greater than a foreign conspiracy”. “We should have faith in our Supreme Court and civil courts,” the PTI activist’s father said, stating he wanted to see the rule of law in his country during his life.
When Niazi mentioned some Indian media reports on Kot Lakhpat jail where his son is imprisoned, Jus-tice Hilali then assured Niazi: “Do not worry. Nothing of the sort will happen.”
Justice Mandokhail asserted, “Our (Pakistan’s) defence is strong.” –Agencies
