Islamabad High Court Stays Execution of Ex-Navy Officers, Raises Concerns over Due Process
In a significant development, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued a stay order halting the execution of five former Pakistan Navy officers who were sentenced to death through a general court-martial decree. This decision emerged during a hearing presided over by IHC Judge Babar Sattar, who issued a written order detailing the court's rationale for the stay of execution.
The petitioners, represented by their counsels, presented arguments alleging that they were denied access to legal representation during the general court-martial proceedings. They also claimed that crucial documents, including the abstract of evidence and the court of inquiry report, were withheld from them. This lack of access, they argued, deprived them of the ability to effectively defend themselves and prepare an appeal against the death sentence.
Furthermore, the petitioners' lawyers asserted that the appeal court dismissed their challenge to the death sentence without providing any reasons or sharing the grounds on which the sentence was upheld. This lack of transparency, they contended, prevented them from comprehending the basis for their conviction and violated their fundamental right to due process.
The court order acknowledges the contention of the state, represented by Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Akeel Akhtar Raja, that the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Naveed Ashraf, possesses the authority to restrict access to certain documents based on Rule 193 of the Pakistan Navy Rules, 1961. According to this rule, the naval chief has the discretion to withhold proceedings if he believes their disclosure could compromise the safety or interests of the state.
However, the AAG's admission that the naval chief's opinion justifying the withholding of information was not placed on file raised concerns for the court. The order подчеркивает that the lack of documented reasoning for the chief's decision raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the process.
The court further examines the delicate balance between the state's interest in maintaining secrecy and the individual's fundamental right to life and due process, as enshrined in Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution. The order questions whether the state's assertion of secrecy should override the petitioners' right to be informed of the reasons for their death sentences and to have access to relevant materials for their defense.
In light of these concerns, the court has directed the respondents to submit the naval chief's opinion within three weeks, along with an explanation for his belief that sharing the proceedings would be detrimental to the state's interests. The case has been adjourned until July 1 to allow for the submission of this information.
This stay of execution and the court's scrutiny of the process surrounding the death sentences highlight the importance of upholding due process and ensuring that individuals facing capital punishment have access to fair and transparent legal proceedings. The court's decision to balance the state's security concerns with the fundamental rights of the petitioners sets a significant precedent for the protection of individual liberties in Pakistan.
