By: Abdul Haseeb
ABSTRACT
This article examines the dichotomy between a civilian advocate, representing the norms of the
external civilian bar, and a uniformed advocate, whose role is defined by the commands and
objectives of military law. While both work within the same judicial framework, the distinction
lies in their fundamental professional paradigms: the civil advocate is undivided in loyalty to the
client, whereas the military attorney is unencumbered by the institutional imperatives of the
Military. Moreover, the uniformed advocate often balances legal duties and the inherent
responsibilities of military ranks. By critically analysing, this article explores tensions in
disciplinary and ethical obligations, systematic advocacy, and the very concept of ‘Zealous
Defence’ within the unique contours of the Military Justice System.
INTRODUCTION
This article examines the role of civilian advocates within the Military Justice System. By analysing
the procedural and cultural challenges they face, this study will argue that the integration of
civilian counsel fundamentally tests the boundaries of military justice autonomy. This article
reveals the systematic and practical frontiers that need to be navigated. It further highlights the
critical role these civilian advocates play in safeguarding the legal rights unconventionally.
BACKGROUND
Military Courts in Pakistan are special jurisdictional courts that are set up to try civilians who are
found guilty or accused of terrorism cases. These special courts are established under the Pakistan
Army Act 1952 as a retaliation weapon against the growing threat of terrorism and rising
unfairness in the civilian judicial system. However, amendments have been made; sometimes
military courts are struck down, but for today, in 2025, these courts exist and are functioning in
their own way.
STRUCTURE
These courts are operated by military staff and obviously include uniformed judges and legal
professionals from the armed forces, such as the Pakistan Army, Air Force, and Navy. These legal
professionals are recruited through the JAG branch.
FUNCTIONING
Military courts handle cases for military personnel who deviate from their duties and civilians
accused of crimes of terrorism. Several laws of these special courts are distinct from the ordinary
criminal laws. These courts are often accused of having significant influence from military
personnel in the decision-making process. Military counters this deception that these decisions
are made for the dignity and proper functioning of justice to be served. More concerns are being
raised that these courts do not comply with international human rights standards, especially the
rights of civilian defendants.
LIMITATIONS TO CIVIL ATTORNEY
Despite several amendments and advancements in the Military Courts Constitution, civilian
advocates still face hurdles in representing and advocating for their clients within the courtsmartial. They have limited access to the accused and their case files of the accused as they do in
civilian courts. They are not as privy to the information and investigation of the accused as the
military legal officer is. Also, there is a lack of public access and journalists to military courts,
which can prevent the defence from scrutinising the process. Since cross-examination is an
essential component in criminal trials, military courts still restrict civilian advocates from these
opportunities.
Historically, verdicts had no right to appeal in higher courts under Section 133 of the Pakistan
Army Act (UN Special Rapporteur), but through recent amendments, they can appeal to civil high
courts; however, the issue is still litigious. The complexity and conflicting situation for a civilian
advocate come into play because he has to interplay between civil and military law, arguing that
civilian law must prevail over military laws where they are in conflict. This point may be praised
because, as mentioned above, military courts do not comply with international standards.
Since military courts are excoriated for not complying with international standards, these courts
have some standards. On January, 2nd 2025, ISPR stated that 17 out of 100 convicted individuals
of the May 9 riots had been granted mercy and their remaining imprisonment sentence had been
remitted based on humanitarian grounds. ISPR, Pakistan Army media wing, stated that the
remission shows the due process and fairness of the judicial system. However, the Special
Rapporteur of the UN stated that ISPR had failed to provide the essential information about the
criminal conduct, legal justifications for military jurisdiction and transparency of the proceedings.
Article 14 of the ICCPR, which Pakistan ratified in 2010, guarantees a fair trial and public hearing
by a competent court, but in this case, the military had not ensured the public hearing.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Several policies can strengthen the role of civil attorneys while maintaining military discipline in
the courts. First, a formal procedural amendment shall be made to the Pakistan Army Act 1952,
which allows civil attorneys the right of full speaking, cross-examine the witnesses, and be able
to argue in front of the court without requiring a military counsel to be present. This reform would
enhance fair representation of the accused, who mostly lack confidence in an appointed military
advocate. Second, the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Military Courts can jointly establish a
civil-military training programme, which would harmonise professional standards and bridge the
judicial frontier between the Civil and Military Courts. Additionally, in complex situations, such as
international law violations, espionage, and other similar cases, civil and uniformed advocates
should be assigned to work together to ensure that both military insight and civil legal expertise
are utilised. An example can be seen where Major Adil Raja has been fined 310,000 pounds.
Such reforms would end the long-standing Judicial Frontier, and they would reinforce public
confidence in the Military Justice System. It would also ensure the alignment of the Military
Justice System with global standards, which is always criticised and objected to as unfair and
lacking international standards.
CONCLUSION
Hence, it can be concluded that a civil defence attorney represents a critical intersection between
civil expertise and military judicial authority. While the system provides procedural fairness, but
still transperancy is challenged, that hinder effective advocacy. High-profile cases from Lt Gen Faiz
Hameed to Major Adil Raja in the UK and the May 9 riots illustrate the military accountability and
complexities faced by the legal counsels. Strengthening and promoting policy recommendations
can ensure that justice is ensured with fairness, accountability and the rule of law.
AUTHOR BIO
Abdul Haseeb is an LLB graduate currently practising at the District and Sessions Courts in
Peshawar, specialising in criminal law, civil law, and human rights. He aims to pursue an LLM in
the United Kingdom. Abdul Haseeb writes on legal reforms, military justice, and policy issues,
contributing insights aimed at both academic and public audiences.
Contact Details
Phone: 03349087044
Email: abdulhaseebviip@gmail.com
