Opposing the military courts
The government failed to undertake the reforms needed to ensure a speedy trial of the terrorists for which it had been given two years. The constitutional amendment to introduce military courts was initially opposed by most political parties and prominent jurists in the country. The Supreme Court suspendeddeath sentences awarded by military courts on a number of occasions. On Friday, PPP-P President Zaradri vowed to oppose ‘tooth and nail’ any move to bring in the military courts. And he is not alone. Some of the PML-N’s allies too are against the revival of these courts.
Few would differ that the judicial system needs far reaching improvements to ensure that terrorists do not use the legal lacunae to go scot-free. Those who accuse the judiciary of releasing the criminals often tend to forget that most cases are lost at the investigation and prosecution stages. There is a need to reduce the current dependence on human evidence and to enhance forensic expertise. For this, the police needs to be trained in modern techniques of evidence collection and crime scene examination. A sufficient number of forensic laboratories have to be set up in various provinces. Reforms are also needed to protect the witnesses, the prosecutors and the judges. For this, necessary changes are needed in the prevailing laws. Had there been a will all this could have been done in two years time.
Opposition to military courts is no affront to the army. One would readily agree with COAS Bajwa that the there is a need to ensure the dignity and credibility of the army and that this can be done through selfless performance of its role and duties. The army defends Pakistan’s borders. The country’s defenders keep awake so that the citizens can sleep with a sense of security. It is on account of its professionalism and discipline, and strict adherence to the constitution and the laws of the land that the army can build its image as a dignified and credible force. This ensured, the army will not have to demand respect; it will automatically get it.
I think the issue of military courts should not be treated as a matter of prestige between the armed forces and the civilian government. Instead, it should be determined on the need-basis, after an impartial review of the present situation.
It is a fact that the judicial system has failed to deliver, not because of incompetence of judges and magistrates but because of lack of necessary reforms in the field. The obvious deficiencies are the absence of judges and witness protection mechanism, weak invesgitaion and prosecution as well as the absence of required legislation to update the provisions as regards acceptable evidence, meaning due recognition of latest technological advances instead of relying on centuries-old stipulations regarding evidence.
And we know that in the proceeding two years, no significant progress has been made in this regard, which means that the need for military courts is still there.
Military judges, haviang been trained to sacrifice their lives for the country, do not fear death and freely dispense justice. And through the evidence and wintesses produced, once they are convinced of the guilt of the criminal, they will speedily despatch him to whereever he belongs.
Also, military courts do not in any way prevent the government from introduing the essential reforms.
As such, the sensible course would be to continue with the military courts and a the same time, start the necessary reforms. And once the reforms are complete, discontinue the military courts which would no longer be reguired.
However, abolishing the military courts without a working alternative in place would be suicidal.
Karachi
Comments are closed.