IHC stays execution of five court-martialled former naval officers

• Naval officers sentenced to death by General Court Martial.
• Case relates to fundamental rights of the petitioners: IHC.
• IHC seeks opinion of chief of naval staff on the matter.

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday stayed the execution of five former naval officers who were sentenced to death by the General Court Martial (GCM).

In a written order issued by the IHC, Justice Babar Sattar noted that the case before the court relates to the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10 A of the Constitution.

“It is the contention of the petitioners that they were granted death sentence in a General Court Martial (GCM) and during such proceedings they were not allowed the assistance of a counsel,” it added.

Further, the verdict said a counsel for the petitioners submitted that the permissible documents to be shared with the petitioners such as the abstract of evidence and court of inquiry were also not shared with them.

As per the order, the petitioner stated that without access to such documents an appeal was filed, which was dismissed, and the death sentence was upheld.

The petitioners’ counsel was only provided with limited access and the counsel of the petitioners was shown some documents, which prevented the petitioners from defending their rights, the order cited the petitioner as saying.

As per the assistant attorney general, the chief of the naval staff has the discretion “to form an opinion that supply of any proceedings may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State”.

The chief of naval staff has formed an opinion that sharing details of the proceedings, including the findings recorded by the GCM and the order passed in appeal upholding the death penalty, would be prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the state, the verdict added.

“The question before the court is as to how the interests of the State are to be balanced against the interests of an individual to his right to live as well as his right to due process guaranteed by Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution.

“It appears to be the contention of the State that given the opinion of the Chief of Naval Staff that proceedings and reasoning for passing the death sentence cannot be shared with those against whom such death sentences have been passed, they have no further remedy under the law and the Constitution.”

Given that the fundamental question of protection of the right to life and due process is in question, the petitioners shall not be executed till the disposal of the petition, ruled the IHC.

Moreover, the IHC directed the respondents to file the opinion of the chief of naval staff along with the reasoning as to why he formed an opinion that sharing the proceedings in relation to the petitioners would be detrimental to the interests of the state.