Structured possible arguments of

opposition
1-Against the Constitutional bench:
Opening Argument:

"Supporting the Constitutional Bench Court: Upholding the

Constitution, Ensuring Justice"

The Constitutional Bench Court is essential to the integrity of Pakistan’s legal

system. It serves as a protector of the Constitution, safeguarding democracy,
and ensuring that laws are applied consistently and impartially. Rather than
using the constitutional bench for political maneuvering, as PTI has
occasionally done, we must strengthen it to ensure it remains a check on
power and a defender of the people’s rights.

Main Arguments:

1. Upholding Constitutional Integrity and Rule of Law

o The Constitutional Bench Court is designed to ensure that the

laws passed and actions taken by the government align with the
Constitution. In cases involving fundamental rights, constitutional
amendments, and disputes between state organs, the
constitutional court acts as the final arbiter.

o Example: The 2017 Panama Papers case, in which the

Constitutional Bench played a significant role in ensuring
accountability for high-ranking officials, including former Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif, exemplifies the importance of a strong,
independent constitutional bench in ensuring that leaders are
held accountable to the Constitution.

2. Judicial Independence

o The Constitutional Bench Court must operate independently of

political influence, and this is crucial for maintaining public trust.
Under PTI’s tenure, there have been concerns over the
politicization of the judiciary. However, PML-N strongly supports a
fully independent constitutional court, as it prevents the
executive from overreaching and violating the principles of
democratic governance.
 o Supporting Point: The 2018 general elections and the role of
the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in enforcing
constitutional guidelines were validated by constitutional courts,
proving that a strong court system is necessary for the fair
conduct of elections.

3. Separation of Powers

o A key pillar of democratic governance is the separation of

powers. The Constitutional Bench Court ensures that no branch
of government—executive, legislature, or judiciary—can infringe
upon the powers of another. This independence ensures checks
and balances, preventing authoritarian rule.

o Example: The disqualification of public officials for

corruption, such as the case against Nawaz Sharif, was ultimately
decided by the constitutional bench, reinforcing the principle that
no individual is above the law, not even the Prime Minister.

4. Public Confidence in the Legal System

o For Pakistan to thrive as a democracy, the public must have

confidence in its judicial system. The Constitutional Bench Court,
by resolving critical issues relating to national governance, must
serve as a neutral body. Without such a body, the public would
be left vulnerable to executive overreach and laws that do not
conform to the Constitution.

o Supporting Point: The judgment in the 18th Amendment

case was an example of the Constitutional Bench ensuring that
the balance of power remained intact between the federal and
provincial governments, fostering public trust in a system that
respects the Constitution.

Countering PTI Arguments:

If PTI claims:

"The Constitutional Bench Court has been used for political

purposes"

 We acknowledge the concerns about potential misuse, but this is an

issue of governance, not the constitutional court itself. Rather than
undermining the constitutional court, we need reforms that ensure its
independence from political pressure. A properly functioning
 constitutional court can uphold justice, as seen in key decisions related
to the rule of law and democracy.

 Supporting Evidence: In cases like the controversial military

courts case or the disqualification rulings, the constitutional bench
ensured that the law applied equally to all, reinforcing its legitimacy.

"The Constitutional Bench is a tool for the opposition to challenge

government actions"

 The constitutional court is precisely the institution designed to provide

checks and balances, ensuring that no government, including PTI’s, is
above the law. It is not a political tool but a necessary mechanism for
ensuring the rule of law, particularly in matters of constitutional
importance.

 Supporting Evidence: The 2018 Senate election case ruled by the

Constitutional Bench showed that constitutional review is vital to the
political process, ensuring that elections are fair and in line with the
law.

"The Constitution Bench delays justice and is slow in its decisions"

 While there may be occasional delays, these courts deal with complex
issues that impact the entire nation. The deliberation process is critical
to ensuring thorough consideration and upholding the Constitution’s
integrity. Swift decisions are important, but they must be made with
careful reflection, particularly in constitutional matters.

Conclusion:

The Constitutional Bench Court is vital for the functioning of Pakistan's

democracy. It ensures that the Constitution is respected, rights are protected,
and the government remains accountable. PML-N firmly believes that
strengthening this institution is crucial for maintaining judicial independence,
promoting transparency, and upholding the rule of law. While PTI’s political
narrative may seek to weaken this institution for political advantage, PML-N
stands for an independent, fair, and efficient constitutional court system that
benefits all of Pakistan.
2-Against the appointment of Constitutional bench and
they also want representation while appointing:
If PTI argues that the opposition should have representation in the
appointment of the Chief Justice, here’s how you could structure your
response in support of the current system, where the government (through
the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, or JCP) has the key role in
appointing the Chief Justice:

Opening Argument:

"Ensuring Judicial Independence: Why the Government Should Play a

Key Role in Appointing the Chief Justice"

The Chief Justice of Pakistan is one of the most significant judicial figures in
the country, entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the
Constitution and upholding the rule of law. While opposition parties may
argue for a role in the appointment process, it is critical that the selection
process for the Chief Justice remains independent and insulated from political
influence. The current system, with its checks and balances, ensures that
appointments are made based on merit, transparency, and judicial
independence, rather than political bargaining.

Main Arguments:

1. Judicial Independence and Avoiding Political Influence

o The primary role of the Chief Justice is to ensure the rule of law
and safeguard the independence of the judiciary. Allowing the
 opposition to have a say in the appointment of the Chief Justice
risks politicizing the judiciary and eroding its impartiality.

o Example: If the opposition had a significant role in appointing

the Chief Justice, there could be a perception of bias or
favoritism, especially in cases where the judiciary must make
tough, politically charged decisions. This could undermine public
trust in the judicial system.

o Supporting Evidence: Judicial independence is a cornerstone of

democratic systems worldwide. For example, the U.S. system of
appointing Supreme Court justices by the President, confirmed
by the Senate, has faced challenges due to political polarization,
often leading to accusations of "packing" the courts for political
gain. In Pakistan, it is vital that the appointment of the Chief
Justice remains free from political maneuvering.

2. The Current System Promotes Merit and Transparency

o The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), which is

responsible for the appointment of judges, including the Chief
Justice, includes members from the judiciary, the executive, and
the legal community. This multi-stakeholder approach ensures
that appointments are made based on merit and qualifications,
rather than political considerations.

o Example: The JCP consists of the Chief Justice, four senior

judges, the law minister, and the Attorney General, among
others. This composition allows for diverse perspectives while
ensuring that the judiciary has the final say in the selection of its
leadership.

o Supporting Evidence: This system has worked effectively, with

high-profile appointments such as Chief Justice Saqib Nisar and
Asif Saeed Khosa, who were appointed based on their legal
expertise and judicial track record. The JCP process has produced
leaders who have upheld the integrity of the judiciary.

3. Ensuring Political Balance and Preventing Judicial Overreach

o The government's role in appointing the Chief Justice ensures a

proper balance between the executive and judiciary. While
judicial independence is paramount, the executive's role in
 appointments ensures that no branch of government becomes
too powerful or unaccountable.

o Example: The Pakistan Constitution allows for this balance,

where the President of Pakistan, acting on the advice of the
Prime Minister, formally appoints the Chief Justice, following the
recommendation of the JCP. This ensures that appointments are
in line with constitutional guidelines without undermining judicial
independence.

o Supporting Evidence: In a case like the Nawaz Sharif

disqualification, the judiciary, under the leadership of a Chief
Justice chosen through the current system, acted impartially. In
contrast, had political parties been directly involved in the
appointment process, it could have led to politicization of such
landmark decisions.

4. Global Precedents and the Importance of Judicial Autonomy

o Globally, many countries recognize the need for the judiciary to

be insulated from political influence, especially in the
appointment of judicial leadership. Allowing the opposition to
influence such decisions could lead to conflicts of interest and
create a judiciary beholden to political parties.

o Example: In countries like India, the Collegium System (a

group of senior judges selecting the Chief Justice and other
judges) has faced criticism for being opaque, but it ensures
judicial appointments are free from external political pressure.
Introducing opposition involvement in Pakistan's judicial
appointments could replicate the kind of political influence seen
in countries with less transparent systems.

Countering PTI’s Claim:

If PTI claims:
"Including the opposition in judicial appointments ensures balance
and fairness."

 Rebuttal: While balance and fairness are crucial, judicial appointments

must be free from political pressures. The current system already
involves a broad range of legal professionals and experts through the
Judicial Commission, ensuring appointments are based on legal
merit rather than political affiliation. Introducing the opposition into
 this process could lead to political bargaining, undermining the
independence of the judiciary.

If PTI claims:
"The ruling government may choose a Chief Justice based on
political loyalty rather than merit."

 Rebuttal: The Judicial Commission ensures that appointments are not

solely at the discretion of the government, but are made collectively
with input from senior judges and legal experts. This minimizes the risk
of political influence and prioritizes judicial competence. Additionally,
the Chief Justice’s actions are publicly scrutinized, ensuring
accountability.

Conclusion:

The current system of appointing the Chief Justice ensures that the judiciary
remains independent, impartial, and focused on upholding the rule of law.
PML-N believes that any attempts to politicize this process by including the
opposition in judicial appointments would undermine the very foundation of
judicial independence and fairness. The existing system, through the
Judicial Commission, strikes the right balance between judicial autonomy
and executive oversight, ensuring that judicial appointments are made based
on merit and constitutional principles.

3-Dissolving military courts:

If PTI argues that military courts should be dissolved, and PML-N
opposes this stance, here’s how you can structure your argument in favor of
the continued existence of military courts:

Opening Argument:

"Military Courts: A Necessary Tool for National Security and Justice"

While the opposition, led by PTI, may argue for the dissolution of military
courts, PML-N recognizes the critical role that these courts play in ensuring
national security and swift justice, especially in the face of extremism and
terrorism. The complex and evolving threats to Pakistan’s security
necessitate specialized mechanisms that military courts offer, enabling the
state to swiftly and decisively address the challenges posed by militants and
extremists who threaten the peace and stability of the country.

Main Arguments:
1. National Security Threats and the Need for Swift Justice

o Context of Military Courts: The establishment of military

courts was a response to the increasing threat of terrorism,
particularly after the 2014 Peshawar school attack and the
surge in militancy. Military courts were specifically created to
address the growing need for swift trials of militants and
terrorists who were attempting to destabilize Pakistan.

o Example: Military courts have been instrumental in convicting

high-profile terrorists and militants who posed direct threats to
national security, such as those involved in terrorist attacks,
insurgencies, and organized militant groups. Their swift actions
ensure that these criminals do not remain at large, threatening
the security of civilians.

o Supporting Evidence: Military courts have successfully handled

cases involving terrorism and extremism, ensuring that
individuals who would otherwise operate with impunity are
brought to justice. These courts have played a significant role in
counterterrorism efforts, especially in the aftermath of significant
attacks like the Bacha Khan University attack in 2016.

2. Judicial Backlog and Challenges in Civilian Courts

o Judicial Overload: Civilian courts in Pakistan have faced

significant challenges with backlog and delays in criminal trials,
particularly when it comes to cases of terrorism. Military courts
are better equipped to deal with these specific types of cases
quickly and efficiently.

o Example: While civilian courts are bogged down by case

backlogs and often face delays in complex national security
cases, military courts are structured to prioritize cases involving
terrorism and other national security concerns, ensuring that
justice is served without unnecessary delays.

o Supporting Evidence: The Pakistan Bar Council and various

other legal experts have acknowledged that while military courts
are not ideal, their establishment was necessary due to the
overwhelming burden on civilian courts and the nature of the
security threats faced by the country.

3. Due Process and Oversight in Military Courts

 o Transparency and Accountability: Critics argue that military
courts lack transparency, but these courts are still bound by legal
frameworks and judicial oversight mechanisms. PML-N believes
that military courts must be subject to regular reviews to ensure
that they function in a manner consistent with human rights and
due process.

o Example: Military courts are not free from oversight; they

operate under a strict legal framework, and their decisions can
be reviewed by the higher judiciary to ensure fairness and due
process. Additionally, these courts are meant to handle cases
involving terrorism, which require specialized legal approaches.

o Supporting Evidence: Legal experts and human rights

organizations such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch have voiced concerns about military courts in
Pakistan, but they have also acknowledged that military courts
are a response to unique national security challenges that
require prompt legal intervention.

4. Global Precedents for Specialized Courts

o International Context: Many countries facing similar security

challenges, such as Egypt and Turkey, have relied on military
courts to handle terrorism cases, ensuring that perpetrators of
such crimes are quickly brought to justice. This international
precedent shows that military courts are not an anomaly but a
pragmatic tool in the fight against extremism.

o Example: Turkey's counterterrorism courts have been used

to address the issue of terrorism effectively, ensuring that the
judiciary remains equipped to handle the growing threats posed
by militant organizations.

5. Dissolving Military Courts Prematurely Could Undermine

Counterterrorism Efforts

o Risks of Premature Dissolution: While PML-N advocates for

the long-term reform of military courts, dissolving them
prematurely could have detrimental consequences for the
ongoing fight against terrorism. The nature of terrorist groups is
evolving, and specialized courts are necessary to handle their
complex legal and operational activities.
 o Example: Given that Pakistan continues to face threats from
militant groups, including those operating from within and across
borders, military courts serve as a necessary mechanism to
ensure that these groups are held accountable for their actions.
Dissolving them without an alternative plan for handling
terrorism cases could create a legal vacuum, allowing terrorists
to operate without facing swift justice.

Countering PTI’s Argument:

If PTI argues:
"Military courts are undemocratic and undermine civil liberties."

 Rebuttal: While it is essential to uphold democratic principles and civil

liberties, national security concerns must also be addressed. Military
courts are a temporary measure designed to deal with specific threats.
The civilian judiciary remains the bedrock of Pakistan’s legal system,
but in cases of terrorism, specialized courts provide a necessary
complement. PML-N believes in the eventual reform and strengthening
of both military and civilian courts to ensure a robust justice system.

If PTI claims:
"Military courts are a violation of human rights."

 Rebuttal: PML-N recognizes the importance of human rights and due

process, but the legal framework surrounding military courts ensures
that they operate within the boundaries of constitutional protections.
The establishment of military courts was not intended to violate human
rights but to provide swift justice in response to a dire national security
threat. PML-N advocates for regular oversight and reform of these
courts to ensure they function within established human rights
standards.

Conclusion:

PML-N stands in support of military courts as a necessary tool to address the

unique and evolving challenges posed by terrorism and extremism in
Pakistan. While we acknowledge the concerns about human rights and
transparency, we believe that these courts must continue to operate with
judicial oversight and accountability. Dissolving them prematurely would
undermine Pakistan's ability to fight terrorism effectively, leaving the nation
vulnerable to further attacks. Instead, PML-N supports reforms that will
ensure military courts are transparent, accountable, and used appropriately
in the context of national security.

4-Trials of the victims of the May 9, 2023, incidents should

not be held in military courts:
If PTI’s stance is that trials of the victims of the May 9, 2023, incidents
should not be held in military courts, here’s how you can structure your
argument in support of holding such trials in military courts (from PML-N's
perspective):
Opening Argument:

"The May 9, 2023 Events: Ensuring Accountability through Military

Courts"

The events of May 9, 2023, where violent protests targeted military

institutions, public buildings, and symbols of state authority, represented a
direct attack on the sovereignty and stability of Pakistan. While PTI may
argue for civilian trials, PML-N firmly believes that in cases where national
security and the integrity of state institutions are compromised, the military
courts serve as a necessary mechanism to ensure accountability,
transparency, and swift justice. Military courts have the expertise and
capacity to deal with such threats and protect the rule of law.

Main Arguments:

1. Nature of the Crimes: National Security Threats

o The May 9 incidents were not mere acts of civil disobedience;

they involved violent attacks on key state institutions, including
military installations and public buildings, aiming to destabilize
the government and military. Such acts are inherently linked to
national security and require a specialized legal approach that
military courts can provide.

o Example: The attacks on military installations and symbols of

state authority were organized and targeted, making these
actions a direct challenge to Pakistan’s sovereignty and security.
Holding these trials in military courts ensures that the accused
face justice for actions that could undermine the state’s very
structure.

o Supporting Evidence: Pakistan’s anti-terrorism laws and the

Army Act provide legal grounds for the military to handle cases
of terrorism and threats to national security. These courts are
designed specifically to try offenses that threaten the stability of
the state.

2. Ensuring Swift Justice in the Face of Grave Threats

o Military courts are designed to provide swift trials for national

security-related cases, especially those involving terrorism and
subversion. Given the severity of the crimes on May 9, it is
crucial that justice is not delayed, as prolonged trials in civilian
 courts could risk undermining the public’s trust in the legal
system and allow for the politicization of the proceedings.

o Example: In similar cases of terrorism, such as after the 2014

Peshawar school attack, military courts provided rapid
convictions to ensure that those responsible faced justice without
undue delay. Delays in trials could also embolden others to take
similar violent actions in the future.

o Supporting Evidence: The National Action Plan (NAP),

which was adopted after the Peshawar attack, endorsed military
courts for cases involving terrorism. This highlights the
importance of timely action in cases that threaten national
security.

3. Ensuring Accountability for Attacks on State Institutions

o The attacks on military and government installations during the

May 9 incidents were not just riots; they were coordinated
assaults on Pakistan’s constitutional order. Military courts have
the expertise and mandate to deal with cases that involve
attacks on national institutions, particularly when those
institutions are critical to maintaining law and order in the
country.

o Example: Military courts have previously been tasked with

holding perpetrators of terrorism accountable, such as those
involved in attacks on military bases or strategic locations. These
courts have demonstrated their ability to handle such sensitive
cases with a focus on national security rather than political
considerations.

o Supporting Evidence: The Federal Investigation Agency

(FIA) and counter-terrorism agencies have flagged that the
May 9 attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a broader
effort to destabilize the government and military.

4. Preventing Political Polarization and Ensuring Fair Trials

o Holding the trials of May 9 perpetrators in civilian courts could

lead to political polarization and the potential for these cases to
be used for partisan gains. Military courts, with their specialized
focus on national security and terrorism, offer a more neutral
 forum for such cases, reducing the risks of political influence or
bias.

o Example: The civilian judicial process might allow for political

figures and their supporters to influence the trial proceedings,
especially given the charged political climate in Pakistan. Military
courts, by contrast, offer a more insulated mechanism that
prioritizes security over political considerations.

o Supporting Evidence: Pakistan’s Supreme Court has upheld

the use of military courts for terrorism-related offenses, stating
that such courts are necessary to ensure that justice is served
swiftly and impartially, free from political interference.

5. International Precedent and Counterterrorism Strategy

o Globally, military courts have been used to address terrorism and

attacks on national security, particularly in countries facing
insurgencies or terrorist threats. The legal framework for military
courts in Pakistan is similar to international practices that
address crimes of terrorism and violent insurrection.

o Example: Countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Israel have

used military courts to try those accused of terrorism and
attacking national institutions. These precedents reflect the
necessity of military courts in certain national security situations.

o Supporting Evidence: The United Nations and Human

Rights Watch have acknowledged the need for specialized
courts in cases of terrorism, as long as the due process rights of
the accused are respected. Military courts in Pakistan are bound
by constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight, which
ensures their legitimacy.

Countering PTI’s Argument:

If PTI argues:
"The accused should be tried in civilian courts to ensure that their
basic human rights are upheld."

 Rebuttal: While the rights of the accused should always be upheld,

the crimes committed on May 9 were attacks on the state’s institutions
and its sovereignty. These crimes fall within the domain of national
security, and military courts are specifically designed to address such
 threats. The military courts system ensures swift, transparent trials in a
manner that the civilian court system cannot due to backlog and
jurisdictional limitations in such sensitive cases.

If PTI claims:
"Military courts lack transparency and accountability."

 Rebuttal: Military courts operate within a legal framework that

includes oversight from the judiciary and other bodies to ensure
accountability. In cases involving national security, the need for swift
trials outweighs the potential risks of delays in the civilian judicial
system. Moreover, the Constitution allows military courts to be used in
these exceptional circumstances, under the guidance of national
security laws.

Conclusion:

PML-N believes that the trials of the perpetrators of the May 9, 2023
incidents should be held in military courts due to the national security nature
of the crimes. These courts are equipped to deal with terrorism and attacks
on the state's institutions, ensuring that justice is swift, impartial, and not
influenced by political or external pressures. While we respect the rights of
the accused, the gravity of the offenses committed on May 9 warrants the
use of military courts to safeguard the stability of the nation and prevent
further threats to its sovereignty.

-Important articles which can favor us in our

stance:
1. Article 245 of the Constitution:

 Article 245 empowers the Pakistan Armed Forces to assist in the

defense of Pakistan, and it also allows for the military to be called upon
in situations that threaten national security. It states:

"The executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the maintenance

of law and order in the Federation and in every Province, and to the raising
and maintaining of the Armed Forces."

 This provides the legal backing for the involvement of military

institutions in situations where national security is at risk, including
military trials for attacks like those on May 9, 2023.
2. Article 247 of the Constitution (Military Courts in Special
Circumstances):

 Article 247 authorizes the Parliament of Pakistan to make laws to

create military courts in special circumstances, particularly when
national security is compromised.

 In cases of terrorism or attacks on national institutions like the

military, the application of military tribunals is considered a
constitutional safeguard to ensure that national security is maintained.
This article justifies military courts under the provisions for security-
related cases.

3. The Pakistan Army Act (1952):

 The Army Act of 1952, Section 2, provides the legal framework for
the establishment of military courts to try offenses involving national
security and breaches against the defense and integrity of the country.
Under this law, terrorism and attacks on military installations fall
under the jurisdiction of military courts, allowing for expedited trials in
such cases.

 Supporting Point: The military courts set up under this law have
been used for prosecuting individuals accused of engaging in or
facilitating terrorist activities or direct attacks on the country’s military
installations.

4. The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997:

 Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act provides for the jurisdiction of

military courts in terrorism cases. This is crucial in determining when
military courts are to be used. The act specifically allows for swift trial
procedures for cases that involve significant national security threats
or terrorism.

 For the May 9 incidents, where military installations were attacked and
national security was threatened, the ATA supports the trial of the
accused in military courts.

5. 18th Amendment and Military Courts (2010 Amendment):

 The 18th Amendment (2010) did not directly alter military court
provisions but made significant changes to the judicial system.
However, the National Action Plan (NAP) (following the Peshawar
school attack in 2014) endorsed military courts as a response to rising
 terrorism in Pakistan. These courts were subsequently renewed under
NAP, demonstrating the understanding that national security situations
can justify such courts.

 In 2017, Pakistan's Supreme Court ruled on military tribunals,

reinforcing their legitimacy in dealing with terrorism-related offenses,
reaffirming their role in the framework of national security laws.

6. Judicial Review of Military Courts:

 The Supreme Court of Pakistan has asserted that the use of military
courts is not arbitrary. While they have judicial review over the
sentences imposed by military tribunals, the use of military courts in
terrorism cases is supported as a measure to ensure swift justice in
matters that directly affect national security. However, the court has
emphasized that civilian oversight ensures fairness and transparency.

7. Legality of Military Courts (2019 Judgment):

 In 2019, the Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the continuation of

military courts, ruling that their establishment was legal and within
constitutional boundaries when addressing national security concerns.
The court underscored that the military courts' role in dealing with
terrorism cases is part of an exceptional, temporary measure in
response to threats to national security.