ISLAMABAD – The supreme court of Pakistan ruled on Tuesday that thecourt-martial of a military officer could not be conducted overnon-disclosure of financial assets.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Mian SaqibNisar and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Umar Ata Bandial,resumed hearing in the defence ministry’s petition regarding reinstatementof military official Col Munir Ahmad Gill and upheld a decision by LahoreHigh Court in this regard.
According to the details, Lt-Col (retd) Munir Ahmed Gill was arrested inJune 1997 by the special investigation branch on charges of receiving acommission on the purchase of approximately 6,000 tons of sugar formilitary use.
In 1999, he was convicted by Field General Court Martial (FGCM) inRawalpindi for receiving commission, concealing his property and filingfalse income tax returns and was sentenced to one-year rigorousimprisonment and dismissal from service.
In August 1999, the then Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf hadgranted pardon to the officer’s imprisonment while upholding the punishment.
However, Gill in 2000 had invoked the jurisdiction of the high courtagainst his 1999 conviction by the FGCM and a petition was moved in theLahore High Court’s Rawalpindi bench which set aside the military court’sorder against the army officer on 12 January 2009.
Gill in his petition pleaded that the FGCM had overstepped its jurisdictionwhile convicting him for filing false income tax returns convincing thebench that such charges could only be tried by a civilian court.
The high court’ verdict was challenged in the apex court, which dismissedthe petition but admitted a review petition, which was shot down onTuesday, however, the remarks made during the hearing made headlines acrossthe mainstream media.
During the hearing, the bench observed that even in misrepresentation ofassets, a military official would not be tried by court-martial.
Opposing the verdict of LHC, Additional Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhattiargued that there was an obligation for a military official that he shouldbe truthful and honest in his conduct.
However, the bench seemed unimpressed and remarked that the military courthad no jurisdiction to remove any official on the basis of non-disclosureof assets.
Justice Nisar observed that even in misrepresentation of assets, the matterwould fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
Moreover, Justice Ahsan noted that statements submitted to an unauthorisedinstitution would not be considered as misconduct.
The litigation continued for 18 years in the matter and finally, the armyofficer won the battle.