Mali's military courts

Studio Tamani has a summary, in French, of the work of the country's military courts. Their main concern is military and civilian offenses by military personnel, but--notwithstanding the views of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights*--they can also try civilians who are co-actors or accomplices of military accuseds.

* The Commission determined in 2003:

G. RIGHT OF CIVILIANS NOT TO BE TRIED BY MILITARY COURTS:

a) The only purpose of Military Courts shall be to determine offences of a purely military nature committed by military personnel.

b) While exercising this function, Military Courts are required to respect fair trial standards enunciated in the African Charter and in these guidelines.

c) Military courts should not in any circumstances whatsoever have jurisdiction over civilians. Similarly, Special Tribunals should not try offences which fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts.

Taliban government military court

According to this report, the Taliban government has established a military court to enforce Sharia law, divine decrees and social reform in Afghanistan. Stay tuned.

Amnesty International statement on Tunisia's misuse of military courts

Amnesty International has issued this detailed statement on Tunisia's continuing misuse of military courts to prosecute civilians. Excerpt:

Between 2011 and 2018, human rights groups documented at least six cases of civilians brought before the military justice system; this number has been exceeded in the past three months alone.

The civilians currently facing military courts include six members of parliament from the Al Karama party, including Abdellatif Aloui, along with lawyer Mehdi Zagrouba.  Anouar Ouled Ali, who heads the men’s legal defence team, told Amnesty International that they are being investigated in connection with an altercation with police at Tunis international airport on 15 March 2021. They are facing charges relating to public disorder, threatening state security, and impeding or insulting public officials in the course of their work. While some of these charges relate to recognizable offenses under international law, civilians facing such charges should do so in a civilian, not military, court.

Tunisia’s Code of Military Justice allow the military justice system to try civilians in specific circumstances. Article 91 of the Military Code of Justice mandates prison terms for military personnel or civilians who carry out public acts that denigrate the flag or the army or criticise the actions of military leadership or undermine its dignity.

Tunisian law grants the president final control over the appointment of judges and prosecutors in the military court system, based on nominations by the defence and justice ministers. As a result, military courts lack independence. Under international human rights law civilians should never be brought before military courts, no matter what the charges against them.

Guidelines from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is mandated to interpret the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, of which Tunisia is a state party, state that military courts should not “in any circumstances whatsoever have jurisdiction over civilians.”

Veterans Day: Thursday, November 11, 2021

 

To all who have served: thank you.

Married law graduates not eligible to join Judge Advocate General Branch of the Indian Army

A petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging policy being followed in the Indian Army, barring married law graduates from joining the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch.

However, until 2017, the eligibility conditions for men and women desirous of joining the JAG branch as short service commissioned officer were different. Married women were not eligible for recruitment in the JAG department while there was no such restriction on married men. This was contested as discriminatory to women candidates. The Government had told the high court that “right to marry” was not a fundamental right and does not come under the ambit of the Right to Life under the Constitution.

However, the Government amended the eligibility condition under Army Instruction issued in 2017. Now married men and women are not eligible to apply for grant of Short Service Commission in the JAG branch of the Indian Army.

This too has been challenged in the High Court as discriminatory. It has been stated that since the legal age of marriage in India is 18 years and 21 years for females and males, respectively, there was no justification for making marital status an eligibility criteria. Due to the institutionalized discrimination being practised by the Government, law graduates aged 21-27 years are being deprived of their fundamental rights on grounds of marital status. The petitioner has contended that the discrimination on grounds of marriage violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 16 (Equality of opportunity), Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession) and Article 21 (Right to live with dignity) of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court has allowed early hearing in plea and will hear the case on 11 January 2022.

Wg Cdr U C Jha (Retd)