The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Monday heard intracourt appeals challenging the trial of civilians in military courts.
During the hearing, Salman Akram Raja argued that while the Army Act’s provisions for civilians were originally intended for terrorists, the government is now misusing them against political opponents.
The court adjourned the case until Monday, with Raja set to continue his arguments in the next session.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan remarked that a law cannot be deemed invalid solely based on its misuse. During the proceedings, references were made to the 1962 Constitution and a famous poem by Habib Jalib. Raja also revealed that he himself was accused in the November 26 case involving the killing of three Rangers personnel, raising concerns that if the court upholds these provisions, they might be used against him.
Raja questioned the legitimacy of military courts, asserting that no civilian should be subjected to their jurisdiction. He cited an unusual historical case involving Brigadier (retd) F.B. Ali, who was initially sentenced by a military court under Zia-ul-Haq but was later pardoned by Zia after becoming army chief.
Justice Musarrat Hilali inquired whether Zia-ul-Haq had sought an apology from F.B. Ali and whether the 1962 Constitution was legitimate. Raja responded that the 1962 Constitution was flawed, as Field Marshal Ayub Khan had granted himself excessive powers—a point strongly criticized by poet Habib Jalib.
Raja further emphasized that no other country has a similar provision in its Army Act, and the government is exploiting it against political rivals instead of terrorists. He also highlighted the inhumane treatment of his client, a first-class cricketer, who was sentenced to six years by a military court and allegedly suffered under military custody.
