Session 11 - Army Act

I would like to touch upon the debate regarding the transfer of authority to try and convict suspected terrorists from civil courts to military courts. An amendment was made to add what is known as the Army Act to the constitution of Pakistan following the Peshawar attack. For the next two years, till this Act is in effect, ‘military men’ rather than judges and lawyers will be prosecuting those suspected of possessing explosives, raising arms against the state, kidnapping for ransom among other crimes terror generating crimes. This has raised concern among many regarding the ability of military men, who lack the knowledge and experience required to interpret the law, to deliver free and fair trials. 

Anti-Terrorism Courts made for the purpose of trying terrorism cases have proved to be nothing but inefficient. Not only are the conviction rates incredibly low (below 10%), the courts are dealing with cases that are not related to terrorism. Apparently, approximately 17 thousand cases are currently under trial in the Anti-Terrorism Courts.

 Yet many are unwilling to accept that transferring conviction authority may be the best option to curb the rising terrorist threat in the country. One reason for that could be that the military has over time almost completely encroached upon the responsibilities of the government. In the last 37 years martial law was imposed each time a new government came into power (before the end of its tenure), with one exception. The division of the political arena from military has become very faint and so it makes sense that a large number now opposes military interference.  Another reason could be that some believe it is unconstitutional like in the case of 9/11 when it was advised by some that terrorist prosecution authority be given to the military but was not implemented as it was thought to be unconstitutional. This is so because the constitution requires a separation of power between civil and military courts however the army act is a violation of this requirement.

One can come up with many reasons to criticize this amendment however at the end of the day what is important is for the state to take measures that ensure justice and peace prevail in the country and by making this decision the state is attempting to achieve those outcomes. Just like the Jirgah system, at times the country requires solutions that may not be very popular to be implemented to deal with critical issues (desperate times call for desperate measures).