'Why were APS attackers not tried in military court?' questions SC

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Wednesday inquired the government why the trial of the Army Public School (APS) attack was not conducted in military court despite having the Army Act and the crimes linked to it.

During the intra-court appeals hearing against civilian trials in military courts, the bench headed by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan also questioned why an amendment to the Constitution was required to conduct terrorism trials in military courts.

Ministry of Defence lawyer Khawaja Haris stated that while the APS attack concerned the military, it was not directly tried under military courts. He noted that the constitutional amendment extended to additional crimes beyond those related to military duties.

On December 16, 2014, the militants attacked the Army Public School in Peshawar, killing 147 people, mostly school children.

The Defense Ministry’s counsel added that the nature of the crime determines where the trial will take place. If a civilian's crime is related to the armed forces, the trial will proceed in a military court.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail also questioned why the cases related to the General Headquarters (GHQ) attacks and Karachi airbase did not proceed in military courts, adding that the answer to this question was provided in the 21st Amendment case.

The 21st Constitutional Amendment allowed military trials for terrorism cases after the APS attack.

In response, Haris explained that the 21st Amendment case mentioned attacks on the GHQ, airbases, military, and places of worship, stating that if a crime is related to the military, the trial will be held in a military court.

When the judge sought clarification on what “related to the military” meant, Haris stated that it referred to crimes directly tied to the Army Act.

The judge further inquired where trials for terrorist acts committed in the name of a terrorist group or religion would be held.

Haris responded that such cases would be tried in military courts under the Army Act and could proceed in these courts without requiring constitutional amendments.

After hearing the Defence Ministry counsel's arguments, the constitutional bench adjourned the hearing until Thursday (tomorrow).