The National Assembly on Wednesday gave its assent to an amendment to the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), 1952, providing legal cover to the arrests already made by law-enforcement agencies, including the army. Chaudhry Jaffar Iqbal, parliamentary secretary for defence, presented the bill — which has already been passed by the Senate — in the lower house. The law has already been in force in the form of a presidential ordinance since February of this year and now, pending the president’s assent, the bill will pass into law. The bill seeks an amendment in Section 2 of the PAA, allowing military courts to hold in-camera trials and conceal the names of court officials “for the protection of witnesses, president, members, prosecutors, defending officers and other persons concerned in court proceedings”. The amendment provides legal cover to the military personnel involved in the military courts, as well as providing retrospective authority to the arrests made by the army and the law enforcement agencies. In effect, it prevents military personnel from being charged with negligence or dereliction of duty during military court proceedings and limits the ability of the convicted to appeal against the decision. This means that the military can happily continue the “practice of military courts pronouncing death penalty against unnamed accused by unnamed judges sitting at an undisclosed location and without any mention of charges or defense pleas”.
The military was already protected from legal challenge under a presidential ordinance since February; the passing of this bill makes that protection permanent. Herein lies the fault. The military courts by definition are meant to exist for only a certain amount of time, an ordinance, which also needs to be renewed periodically, would have provided the required cover to the military courts to operate. Amending the Army Act 1952 entrenches these protections, allowing the army to use them to safeguard its officials and authorise its arrests in matters completely unrelated to the war on terror. An ordinance would have lost effect at the passing of a certain time, this law needs to be actively revoked if future governments wanted too – which, considering the time and effort that needs to be devoted to such an action, seems unlikely.Even if this law needed to be amended, the government should have incorporated the safeguards suggested by the Supreme Court, which allowed an appeal procedure.
pk.shafaqna.com
