During the meeting, Law Minister Zahid Hamid gave replies to questions of the opposition on the performance of military courts. However, the opposition expressed no satisfaction on the briefing and even raised question of absence of the interior minister and security officials from the meeting.One wonders what Mr Hamid was asked and what his responses were. Were the basic questions this blog suggested addressed in any way?
[MP Michael] Kabaziguruka had petitioned the Constitutional court, seeking a declaration that the GCM and other military courts were unconstitutionally established.
He contends that these courts are merely tribunals set up for purposes of disciplining errant military officials and not courts of law within the meaning of the Constitution.
Kabaziguruka therefore wants the powers of the military court be limited to only disciplining soldiers rather than charging them (soldiers) and civilians with offences. He also wants court to award him cost of the petition.
He accuses the 6th Parliament of over stepping its powers by creating section 197 of the UPDF Act that establishes the GCM other than a mere tribunal to instil discipline among UPDF soldiers.The Attorney General's chambers position is as follows:
"As a civilian, Kabaziguruka is alleged to have been aiding and abetting persons subject to military law to commit service offences which bring him under the realm of the General Court Martial" [Denis] Bireije stated.
He contends that the GCM before which Kabaziguruka has been charged is capable of fairly and accurately pronouncing itself on the charges brought against Kabaziguruka without prejudice to him.
According to Bireije, Kabaziguruka has not shown or demonstrated to court that there is eminent danger which he intends to stop that cannot be compensated by way of damages.
He also argues that all the issues raised in Kabaziguruka's application are of enforcement of human rights which can be handled by any competent court without resort to the Constitutional Court. Bireije added that Kabaziguruka's allegations are unfounded and speculative.
 |
| Judge Cynthia Valstein-Montnor |
Bouterse was elected president in a parliamentary vote in 2010 and re-elected in 2015. He pushed an amnesty law through parliament that would have ended his trial but that was ruled unconstitutional.
In June, he directed the country's attorney general to immediately halt the legal proceedings against him, invoking an article of the constitution that allows the president to issue such an order in the interests of national security.
But the presiding judge in the military court, Cynthia Valstein-Montnor, ruled the prosecution does not have the authority to withdraw a complaint after a trial has started.
"The level of secrecy around Norman's departure also does not sit well with some of his supporters, who point out the lack of information has allowed theories about why he was removed to spiral out of control."In a related article also published in the Canadian parliamentary precinct weekly, Hill Times, Michel Drapeau and his associate Joshua Juneau posit that should Vice Admiral Norman’s removal be permanent, a replacement VCDS will need to be found soon. They deplore the fact, however, that in Canada, General rank and Flag officers are all appointed on the sole and unique selection and nomination of the Chief of Defence Staff [CDS]. It is also customary for the CDS to nominate for the approval to the Minister of National Defence a single nominee for the promotion and/or appointment or re-appointment of a General or Flag officer. This leaves the Minister with a 'fait accompli' and it provides no parliamentary control or oversight.
So why has a military court been selected as the most suitable venue for anti-garbage protesters? The short answer is that, as HRW outlines, Lebanon’s military court system “has broad jurisdiction over civilians, including in cases involving… any conflict between civilians and military or security personnel or the civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, army, security services, or military courts.”
Of the many problems with the arrangement in this case, however, perhaps the worst is that the “conflict” between protesters and Lebanese security personnel involved the latter firing water cannons and other projectiles at the former, as I myself witnessed at the October 2015 protest in downtown Beirut which produced the 14 defendants in question.
Torture is par for the course in Lebanese detention centres, although the state prefers to criminalise those who speak out about it rather than those who commit it.
The deeper reason, meanwhile, for the military court solution is implied in HRW’s note that “[a]ccording to defendants, lawyers and Lebanese human rights organisations, the military courts have used this broad jurisdiction to intimidate or retaliate against individuals for political reasons and to stamp out dissent”.
An Egyptian military court Sunday sentenced 227 dissidents to jail for allegedly promoting violence following the August 2013 violent crackdown of Egyptian security forces, according to a local non-governmental organization.
The Aug. 14 Rabia and al-Nahda crackdowns came in the wake of the military coup that July.
The Western Cairo military court sentenced 133 of the defendants, 82 of whom were tried in absentia, to 25 years in prison, and 94 others (72 of whom were tried in absentia) to 15 years each, Ezzat Ghanem, the chief of Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms, said in a statement.
29 of the opponents were released after the court ruling while one case was dismissed after the suspect died, he added.
An Irish Army soldier who went missing for almost a year and a half has been fined 10 weeks’ pay and issued a severe reprimand.
However, the private was not found guilty of desertion for being absent without leave for 509 days.Does any reader have the back story on this case? (No anonymous comments, please.)
The clock should be reset to 1998, before sexual assault was listed in section 70 of the National Defence Act as one of the offenses that could now be tried by a military tribunal.
The CVBR [Canadian Victim Bill of Rights] section 18(3) should also be repealed, so criminal offenses are no longer prosecuted before military tribunals, sparing victims the ordeal of being excluded from the act’s provisions.
This gives some urgency to the need to conduct a comprehensive and immediate modernization of the National Defence Act.
Until the NDA is reformed, the interests of victims will continue to be ignored by the military justice system, leaving the central issue unresolved.
 |
| Rep. Ted W. Lieu (D.-CA) |
*** In addition to losing the popular vote, [Donald J.] Trump — as of January 20, 2017 — is in violation of the Emoluments Clause set forth in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution due to massive conflicts of interests and his refusal to put his global business holdings in blind trusts. Trump also benefitted from Vladimir Putin ordering a multifaceted and brazen Russian influence and cyber hacking campaign with the goals of undermining faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrating Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s electability, and helping Trump’s election chances. Trump and his press secretary also routinely make stuff up.This article suggests that Rep. Lieu has violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes the use of contemptuous words about, among other officials, the President. Truth is not a defense, according to the Manual for Courts-Martial.
Colonel Edgar Dure of the Paraguayan Air Force has spent four months in detention in the military garrison known as Vinas Cue, without having been formally charged or sentenced for a crime, for lack of courtesy to General Braulio Piris, the Commander of the Paraguayan Armed Forces, his military superior, at a social event (he failed to extend his hand to the General at the social event). Pursuant to Paraguayan military law an individual has to be indicted within 20 days and six times that amount of time has elapsed while Dure is held in detention with convicted prisoners.
On 30 January, 14 civilians will face three years in prison in a military court trial for their involvement in #YouStink protests against Lebanon's rubbish crisis.
And the military trial for an ostensibly civilian protest is not an exception. Lebanese law allows military courts, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, to try civilians simply because they have clashed with security forces. As a result, protesters who have been on the receiving end of riot police, firing rubber bullets and teargas, are routinely arrested under military justice rules.How long will it take Lebanon to kick this habit? Human Rights Watch is on the case, with a press release and detailed report. Here are HRW's recommendations:
 |
| Franz Josef I |
The most lamentable aspect of this episode was, the military courts were supported by all the opposition parties including the one which waged a long struggle against the military rule. Yes, the Pakistan People’s Party whose founder Z A Bhutto preferred to walk to the gallows instead of bowing his head before the military dictator Gen Ziaul Haq. The PPP senator Razza Rabbani cried after voting in the Senate (the upper house) in favor of the military courts. ‘I have been in the Senate for more than 12 years, but have never been as ashamed as I am today and I cast my vote against my conscience.’ (He could have resigned instead of going against a so-called conscience!) Isn’t shameful that there was not a single vote against the military courts?
The military courts were set for two years in January 2015. They sentenced 161 people to death, 12 of them have been executed and 169 to life imprisonment. According to advocate lieutenant colonel (retired) Inamur Rehman, the military courts never provided the copies of the proceedings of trials. He cited the case of Nadeem Ahmad Shah advocate. Shah was framed on false charges. His counsel gave the prosecution a tough time in cross examination. As a result, Shah was acquitted but after this acquittal, the military court did not allow any accused to have a defense counsel.
If the military courts were set up to frighten the terrorists then they were an utter failure. On January 20, 2016, the ‘strategic assets’ attacked Bacha Khan University in Charsadda (Khyber Pakhtoonkhua) killing 22 people and wounding another 20. On August 8, 2016, seventy people were killed and 100 wounded in a suicide attack in Quetta at emergency war of Civil Hospital Quetta. On October 24, 2016 Quetta was again a target of suicide bombers. This time, they attacked the Quetta Police Academy killing 61 cadets. Were military courts’ summary trials able to stop the terror?
. . . In the present case in spite of all odds and events and efforts to suppress alleged recovery of 147 gold biscuits, we appreciate the zeal of Col K.S. Dalal, the then Commanding Officer 4 Rajputana Rifles and Capt Manveet Singh, Judge Advocate who seem to be torch bearers of leadership, quality and firmness to do their duty fairly and honestly. They are the real heroes of Indian Army because of whom reputation of Indian Army is appreciated all over the world, entitled for commendation.Captain Singh, a qualified officer of the JAG Branch, was improperly released as 2d Lieut. Chauhan's defense counsel, and replaced by a non-lawyer artillery officer.
The military court’s speedily concluded; heavily veiled decision was conducted with almost no transparency or accountability. But that is not the part that frightens the most because the military court’s covert and obscure execution of justice in the case of Saad Aziz will do nothing to stop the future Saad Aziz’s from taking the lives of future Sabeen Mahmud’s.
It is no secret that improprieties are rampant in Pakistan’s civilian trials. Today, despite reaching the end of its mandated two-year term, the government has failed to provide any evidence suggesting that major steps were taken to fix the inadequacies of the civilian criminal justice system.
But this does not mean that special military courts are the cure to the problem of civilian courts. This is because military justice, when compared to the civilian criminal justice system, is simply different.
The hallmark of a judiciary is its independence. In a country like Pakistan where the army boasts remarkable amounts of power, a military-run judicial system is nothing short of a puppet show – one in which select political parties and military folk are the puppeteers.
- Who will be general counsel of the Department of Defense? The GC's power over military justice is limited but he or she could still be influential.
- The Manual for Courts-Martial will have to be amended to accommodate the Military Justice Act of 2016, including such critical matters as the provision of uniform tours of duty (dare we call them terms of office?) for military judges. Will the next round of changes -- or the process by which they are generated -- be different from what they would otherwise have been given the change of administration?
- What will be the new administration's position with respect to sexual assault in the armed forces? Will it take further action or will it roll things back?
- Who will be the service general counsels? They can be influential in overseeing the boards for correction of military and naval records.
- Will the new administration undertake any military justice initiatives that require legislation, such as finally fixing the indefensible 30+ year old denial of access to the Supreme Court in the numerous court-martial cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) denies discretionary review?
- Who will President Trump appoint to succeed CAAF Chief Judge Charles E. "Chip" Erdmann, whose term expires on July 31, 2017?
- Who will be the Solicitor General, an official who plays a major role in military cases before the Supreme Court? Will the new SG have any background in military justice?
- Will the new administration shift the current military commission cases to the Article III civilian courts, or will it stay the current course?
- Will the new administration decrease or increase the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station?
- Will there be any effect on military capital cases? No death sentence can be carried out without the affirmative approval of the President.
- What will be President Trump's clemency policy for military cases?
According to Lieutenant General Talat Masood, a senior defence analyst, the military wants an extension in the special courts for valid reasons because the government failed to bring judicial reforms in the last two years.
According to him, a one-year extension should be given to the military courts and at the same time the government should also make legislation to strengthen the judicial system – providing protection to the prosecution and witnesses.
He said “military courts were established because of the loopholes in our judicial system that is unable to punish hardcore terrorists,” adding the government needed to undertake measures to strengthen the judicial system. “Once a strong judicial system with protection to prosecution and witnesses is in place, reliance on military courts would come to a natural end,” he added.
 |
| National Security Court |
A Jordanian military court has charged eight activists with "insulting the King" and "incitement to spread chaos to undermine the political regime of Jordan using social media", lawyers said.
The General Intelligence Directorate (GID), the "Mukhabarat" in Arabic, last week arrested civilian opposition activists, including retired army and intelligence generals, a former MP, a former high-ranking government official and several teachers.Human rights norms strongly disfavor the trial of civilians and military retirees in military courts.
 |
| His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett |
"there is a great deal of speculation surrounding the circumstances that led to my decision with regards to Vice-Admiral Norman . . . [but for] privacy considerations I am unable to provide further information."
. . . it’s less clear whether or not the Armed Forces command is doing the right thing by refusing to release even the smallest detail to explain the “temporary” departure of the man who is effectively the military’s chief operating officer.
Vice-Adm. Norman is responsible for security inside the Armed Forces and may have access to highly classified information. This raises a serious question: Is national security at risk.
The public deserves to know what's going on.
The Nation carries this report on Pakistan's festering military courts issue. Excerpt:The second in-camera meeting between the government and major opposition parties ended in a stalemate as both the parties were at odds over the issue of military courts.
The controversial military courts, created in wake of the [December 2014] Army Public School massacre to try civilian on terrorism charges, had ceased to function after the expiry of their mandated period earlier this month.
The meeting was chaired by National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq at the parliament house. Federal Minister for Law and Justice Zahid Hamid briefed the meeting on the performance of the military courts.
Opposition members demanded of the government to come up with more details in the next meeting. They also demanded an in-camera session of parliament over the issue. Both the parties are set to meet again on January 31.Why should Parliament meet in secret about reviving these courts?
The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) and Jamaat-e-Islami are firmly opposed to the extension of the authority of the military courts and consistently ran a campaign to the effect. The stand they have taken has not left any room for a compromise.
The government’s dilemma is that it is in no position to amend the Constitution single-handed to give powers to the military courts as it doesn’t have the requisite two-thirds majority in the parliament. Even if it is able to manage such a tally in the National Assembly with tremendous difficulty, it doesn’t have this number in the Senate, controlled by the opposition especially the PPP, which is in no mood to cooperate with the government.
 |
| Mohammed Hanif |
The military courts’ special jurisdiction expired on Jan. 7, and the government is holding consultations with opposition parties about reviving it. Some parties are wary, but no one really wants to be seen challenging the army.
Pakistan’s insistence on trying and convicting its terrorists in secret is baffling. The war against the Taliban and other religious extremists is supposedly a war of ideas. But how are we to fight an idea when we don’t know what it is?
These trials provide not justice so much as revenge, and they uncover very little information. The Taliban were fond of killing our soldiers and making videos while doing it. We let our army take away suspected terrorists to try them and hang them, but we want to be spared the gory details.
And yet the gory details are what we need to know if we want to know our enemy. The reasons Aziz gave in his interview for killing Sabeen — she spoke out against the Taliban, she promoted secular values — echo views and values common among corporate workers, lawyers, journalists and other armchair jihadists. That’s why holding court hearings in the open matters: Because then they might reveal how a theological argument can lead to a massacre, how prejudice can lead to sectarian violence.
An interesting issue has arisen in New Zealand, according to this op-ed. A soldier was convicted of 12 sex offenses by a court-martial years ago, but there was no provision for recording this as a criminal conviction. Excerpt:When he left the army, he was able to gain role as business development manager at Lexington Law without, the firm says, disclosing his offending.
That, says Colonel Craig Ruane, an officer who handles court martials, is the reality of the matter. Military convictions don't appear on police records. And military offenders aren't required to give DNA samples to police.
There has been discussion of changing this. Ruane says it's overdue.
We agree. In our view, the predatory behaviour of Corporal Corey Kennett is an emphatic statement of why this law change must be made, and must be made urgently.
In the two years that military courts were functioning and handing out death sentences, we didn’t get a sense that terrorists were now so scared of being hanged that they were refusing to blow themselves up. But more importantly, despite all power vested in intelligence and law-enforcement agencies by the new and revised laws, and the absolute power vested in military courts, people still kept going missing. What explains this conundrum? Was the original diagnosis wrong? Was it never about inadequate laws?
What is the real appeal of military courts? That they are effective and efficient? That military officers working as judges and prosecutors are not exposed and so not afraid? That cases are decided on time and the decisions are executed on time? Forget the structural problems with these courts with the military acting as police, investigator, judge and executioner. Does anyone know what kind of evidence is presented that leads to convictions? Are any witnesses presented? Are they cross-examined? Are the accused advised and defended by counsel?
The real appeal of military courts is that they don’t have to give reasons for what they do. The trials are not public and the rulings are not subject to scrutiny. No one hears the stories of the accused or why they did what they did. The decisions lead to no debate about right or wrong or whether these courts are striking the right balance between safety and efficiency while awarding death to citizens. They allow everyone not to address thorny moral and policy issues: undisturbed sources of extremism within society that support the supply-chain of terror.
 |
| Lahore High Court |
 |
| Me. Arnaud Ouédraogo |
“CAPFs are directed that instructions may be issued to ensure no photos, videos, text, information of operations, service matters are uploaded on social media or passed on to the print or electronic media without the due approval of the concerned DG or this ministry,” the ministry’s letter said.
“In case any violations of these or other standing orders are noticed, strict action should be initiated against the defaulters,” it added.Unlawful command influence, anyone?
According to the military’s media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa chaired the 198th Corps Commanders’ conference at the GHQ in Rawalpindi on Tuesday.Well, that settles that.
During the meeting, top military officers observed that the military courts, which were established in the aftermath of the Taliban attack in December 2014 on Peshawar’s Army Public School, performed well during the prescribed duration, which resulted in reduction of terrorism.
