ISLAMABAD: A debate concerning the arrest and trial procedures under military jurisdiction has been triggered by the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) reinterpretation of the applicability of the Official Secrets Act (OSA), which states that suspects detained under the Act by military authorities are no longer required to appear before a magistrate.
Saima Hassan, the wife of retired military commander Hassan Bin Aftab, who has been detained since September 19, 2023, filed the case.
Ms. Hassan, who was represented by Advocate Inamur Rahim, claimed that her husband was imprisoned under the OSA and the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) without being able to see his family or legal representation following 27 years of military service.
According to the OSA, the accused must be shown before a magistrate as part of the correct arrest and trial process, the appeal contended. But instead of going through this legal formality, Mr. Aftab was instantly the target of military court proceedings.
According to a recent ruling by the Lahore High Court, suspects under the Official Secrets Act are exempt from appearing before a magistrate.
According to Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan, the OSA’s original demand that suspects appear before a magistrate was rendered unnecessary by later PAA revisions.
He emphasized that the Pakistan Army Act has complete jurisdiction over OSA infractions under the current legal framework, which classifies them as triable by military courts.
The judge also emphasized how this modification streamlines military proceedings for alleged national security violations, which were implemented following the OSA’s association with the PAA.
The court’s view was challenged by advocate Rahim, who said that bringing suspects before a magistrate is still a crucial protection against arbitrary imprisonment.
Speaking to Dawn, he cited earlier instances where appropriate legal procedures were followed in comparable situations, like as the prosecution of former prime minister Imran Khan.
In the cipher case, Mr. Khan was tried in an anti-terrorism court that was presided over by a district and sessions judge under the OSA. In an appeal, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) overturned his conviction.
The attorney also cited a Supreme Court appeal contesting the convictions of 29 civilians who were convicted in military courts while the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) government was in power.
There are questions regarding due process and openness because these people were allegedly arrested without informing their families and tried without being brought before a magistrate.
Debate concerning changes to the OSA enacted by the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government, which was led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), has been rekindled by the case. By adding contemporary communication techniques and extending the definition of military papers and facilities, these revisions greatly expanded the OSA’s purview.
Any written, digital, electronic, or intangible records relating to military capabilities and acquisitions are now considered “documents.”
The Act now covers a wider range of locations thanks to a reinterpretation of military installations and associated activities.
Critics contend that these modifications give intelligence services undue authority, which fuels concerns about abuse and accountability issues.
Advocate Rahim asserted that the public’s confidence in the legal system is damaged and fundamental human rights are violated when there is a lack of openness and legal supervision in these situations.
