By staying the execution of six persons, stated to be convicted terrorists, the Supreme Court has made it plain that the 21st Amendment, passed by the National Assembly early this year, is not a final part of our legal structure and is open to question. The executions of the six men had appeared imminent after the Chief of Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif, on April 2 this month ratified a military court decision that they be hanged. But the matter has now become far less clear-cut, with a 17-member full bench of the SC ruling that the executions be stayed until a decision had been reached on the 21st Amendment, and certain aspects of the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment, passed earlier this year, in the wake of the Peshawar school attack in which 132 children were among those killed, establishes military courts – which are to stay in place for two years – to try terrorists. The law was challenged almost immediately after it was ratified in January this year. At the latest hearing, petitioners which include the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as other bar associations, argued also that the trials of the men sentenced to be executed had been held in secret, and their families not informed about their detention or where they were being held. The issue of human rights violations involved in capital punishment, especially when it is delivered by irregular courts, was also brought up.
All these matters have been raised by activists in the country who argued that executions and military courts were not the best way to combat terrorism. The legality of the courts has also been questioned besides provisions within the 18th Amendment which redefine certain terms included in the constitution. The case is thus of crucial importance to our future, and to our framework of law. Developments within it will, therefore, be watched closely. We cannot make any judgement on what the outcome should be or how matters should be handled. The SC full bench has made it clear that it is not satisfied with the attorney general’s defence of the amendment or his contention that the trials had been fair and unbiased. The final verdict rests with the 17 judges and we trust they have the wisdom and expertise to determine what the best ruling would be keeping in view the overall situation in the country, the need to deliver justice and also to combat the terrorism scourge that has overtaken us quickly and needs to be managed in a way where we can escape all that it has imposed upon us. The outcome in this case is then crucial.http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-8-313599-The-final-say
Comments are closed.