The military justice system in Pakistan is distinct from the civilian judicial system, and military personnel are subject to different rules and procedures. Courts Martial are the military courts which are responsible for the trial and punishment of military personnel who commit offenses under the Act. These courts are essential for maintaining discipline and justice within the military. In this article, we will look at the different types of court martial and their power.
Types of Courts Martial
There are four types of Courts Martial namely: District Courts Martial, General Courts Martial, Field General Courts Martial and Summary Courts Martial. Now, we will be delving into each of these Courts Martial, analyzing their jurisdiction, composition and power.
- District Courts Martial: These courts are convened by an authority that has the power to convene a general court martial or by an officer empowered by a warrant issued by such authority. A district court martial is composed of not less than three officers, each of whom has held a commission for at least two continuous years. District courts martial have limited powers compared to general courts martial, particularly in terms of the severity of sentences they can impose. District Courts Martial can try persons other than officers, junior commissioned officers, or warrant officers for offenses under the Act.
However, their sentencing powers are limited; they cannot impose sentences such as stoning to death, amputation, or imprisonment exceeding two years. - Summary Courts Martial: The most expeditious form of military justice, summary courts martial are held by the commanding officer of any corps, unit, or detachment. In these courts, the officer holding the trial acts alone, although two other officers or junior commissioned officers attend the proceedings. Summary courts martial are limited in their jurisdiction and the severity of punishments they can impose, which excludes the death penalty, amputation, and long-term imprisonment. Summary Courts Martial can try any person under the command of the officer holding the court, except officers, junior commissioned officers, or warrant officers. Their sentencing powers are also restricted, with a maximum imprisonment term of one year and a whipping limit of twenty stripes, depending on the rank of the officer holding the court.
- General Courts Martial and Field General Courts Martial: General courts are the most comprehensive type of courts martial and have the broadest jurisdiction. They are convened by the Chief of the Army Staff or an officer authorized by a warrant issued by the Chief of the Army Staff. A general court martial typically comprises at least five officers, each having held a commission for at least three years, with at least four officers being of a rank not below that of captain. Field General Courts Martial are specifically designed for active service situations where it might be impractical to convene a general court martial due to the demands of military discipline and service exigencies. A field general court martial can be convened by an officer empowered by the Federal Government or the Chief of the Army Staff. On active service, an officer commanding a portion of the Pakistan Army, not below the rank of brigadier, can also convene a field general court martial if it is deemed necessary. General and Field General Courts Martial have extensive powers, including the authority to try any person subject to the Act for any offense and impose any sentence authorized by the Act. A general court martial can impose sentences including the death penalty, but this requires the concurrence of at least two-thirds of its members.
Procedural Safeguards and Rights of the Accused
The Pakistan Army Act includes several procedural safeguards to ensure fairness in trials conducted by courts martial:
● Right to Challenge: The accused has the right to object to any officer sitting on the court martial. If the objection is upheld by a majority of the remaining members, the challenged officer must retire, and another officer may be appointed in their place.
● Oaths and Affirmations: All members of a court martial, including the president, must take an oath or affirmation before the trial begins. Witnesses are also required to take an oath or affirmation before giving evidence, although a special provision exists for children of tender years who may not understand the nature of an oath.
● Prohibition of Double Jeopardy: Once an individual has been acquitted or convicted by a court martial or a criminal court, they cannot be tried again for the same offense by another court martial.
● Limitation Period: There are time limits within which a trial by court martial must commence, generally three years from the date of the offense. However, there are exceptions, particularly for offenses such as desertion.
Notable Cases:
● Lt. General (Retd) Javed Iqbal’s Case (2016)
Lt. General (Retd) Javed Iqbal, along with another senior officer, was court-martialed in 2016 for their involvement in leaking sensitive information to foreign agencies. The court martial proceedings were part of a broader crackdown on breaches of security within the Pakistan Army. However, after the proceedings, Lt. General Javed Iqbal was acquitted of the most severe charges against him, though he faced some administrative penalties. His acquittal raised significant attention as it was seen as a rare instance of high-ranking officers being held accountable through military justice, yet eventually being acquitted of the most serious accusations.
● 2. Major General (Retd) Khalid Zaheer Akhtar’s Case (2019)
Major General (Retd) Khalid Zaheer Akhtar was court-martialed on charges related to financial irregularities during his service. The case attracted considerable media attention as it involved a senior officer facing allegations of corruption. Despite the charges, the court martial acquitted Major General Khalid Zaheer Akhtar, citing insufficient evidence to support the prosecution’s claims. His acquittal was seen as a significant event, highlighting the complexities and challenges within military justice, particularly in cases involving high-profile figures.
These cases underscore the complexities and challenges of military justice in Pakistan, where high-ranking officers can be subjected to court martial, but the outcomes often reflect the nuanced considerations of evidence and the military’s internal dynamics. - Appeal Process:
In Pakistan, the appeal process for court-martial cases is governed by military laws such as the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 , and involves multiple stages. After a court-martial verdict, particularly in severe cases, there is an automatic review by the confirming authority, typically a senior military officer. The accused can then appeal to higher military authorities, such as the Chief of Army Staff, and, if dissatisfied, to the Federal Government. If further redress is needed, a writ petition can be filed with the High Court, and in some cases, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the President of Pakistan holds the power to grant clemency as the final authority.
High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction:
In Pakistan, the High Court has the authority to exercise writ jurisdiction over court-martial cases under Article 199 of the Constitution. This allows the High Court to review decisions made by military courts to ensure they comply with the law and adhere to principles of justice. However, the scope of this review is limited; the High Court typically does not re-evaluate evidence or facts but focuses on whether the court-martial followed due process, respected the accused’s legal rights, and applied the law correctly. If the High Court finds that a court-martial decision violates legal or constitutional standards, it has the power to intervene, which may include quashing the verdict, ordering a retrial, or providing other appropriate remedies. This writ jurisdiction serves as a crucial check on the military justice system, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected within the framework of military discipline.
Conclusion
Courts martial are a critical component of military justice in Pakistan, ensuring that discipline is maintained within the armed forces while providing a structured and fair trial process for those accused of offenses under the Pakistan Army Act. The Act carefully delineates the powers and responsibilities of each type of court martial, balancing the need for swift justice in military contexts with the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
