Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar further inquired, “What will be the procedure if there is no confession? In that case, the case will proceed in the usual manner?”
During the hearing, lawyer Khawaja Haris argued on the procedure of milit trials under the Army Act, stating that the judge and the Advocate General take an oath to maintain impartiality, and that each case is not examined individually in the proceedings.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired about the grounds on which a milit trial could be challenged, asking, “Normally, the accused is considered the ‘favored child’ of the court; is the accused treated the same in milit courts?” The lawyer for the Ministry of Defence responded that the accused is granted protection under the rules of the Army Act.
During the hearing, lawyer Khawaja Haris submitted the record of the milit trial to the constitutional bench, providing seven copies of the milit trial record to the seven judges of the bench.
Khawaja Haris argued that the court should review the trial procedures, and pointed out that before the trial, no objections were raised regarding Lieutenant Colonel Ammar Ahmad.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel responded that this record is to be reviewed during the appeal, and it would not be appropriate for the bench to review it at this stage, ensuring that the trial would not be affected.
The six judges of the constitutional bench returned the trial record to Khawaja Haris, the Ministry of Defence’s lawyer.
