Pakistan’s Supreme Court has pointed out the legal and constitutional complexities surrounding the trials of civilians in military courts for their alleged involvement in the May 9 attacks.
The seven-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard appeals challenging the military trial process.
Judge Jamal Mandokhail emphasized that the crimes committed during the May 9 incidents cannot be denied, but the critical issue remains the jurisdiction of the trials.
“The question is not whether a crime occurred, but where the trial should be held,” Judge Mandokhail said.
The discussion centered on the 21st Amendment, which established the framework for military courts.
Justice Mandokhail noted that the amendment specifically prohibits political party cases from being tried in military courts, raising concerns about the application of the Army Act to civilians.
Defending the government’s position, Defense Ministry lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the Army Act and its rules ensure a fair judicial process.
He cited past cases, including the Supreme Court verdict on Liaqat Hussain, to justify the use of military courts.
However, the court sought clarification on whether this aligns with constitutional principles.
Justice Musarrat Hilali highlighted public fear and chaos during the events of May 9, including incidents of arson, looting and attacks on government properties.
He questioned the outcome of trials for crimes such as theft and property damage that are not related to military installations.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi drew attention to the seriousness of the attacks, citing the burning of the Lahore corps commander’s residence and coordinated attacks in several cities.
“These were not ordinary protests but attacks directed against state security,” he said, referring to evidence presented by the Ministry of Defense, including photographs of the destruction.
The Defense Ministry argued that military courts focus on cases involving violence against sensitive and restricted areas.
However, Judge Rizvi questioned whether the civilians involved were afforded all their constitutional rights, including access to appeal mechanisms.
Justice Ayesha Malik expressed reservations on specific provisions of the Army Act, such as Sections 2(1)(d)(1) and 2(1)(d)(2), arguing that they may conflict with the principles of a fair trial.
He questioned whether adequate notice and representation was provided to civilians tried under these sections.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised additional questions about the dual jurisdiction of military and civil courts.
He asked whether crimes involving both military personnel and civilians are tried separately and whether the evidence provided distinguishes between criminal intent and political dissent.
Khawaja Haris reiterated that the May 9 incidents were not mere acts of protest but deliberate attempts to undermine state security.
“Political activity has its limits. When state property is attacked, it is no longer political but a criminal offense,” he argued.
The Ministry of Defense also presented video evidence of armed civilians attacking military installations.
Judge Hasan Rizvi asked if the evidence showed casualties or injuries among military personnel, to which Haris responded in the affirmative, stating that the armed attacks caused injuries and damage.
The court appeared divided on the broader implications of the military trials. Judge Mandokhail questioned why similar attacks on institutions such as Parliament were not tried in military courts and called for consistency in the application of the law.
The hearing concluded with the court adjourning the proceedings until Monday, allowing time for further deliberations.
Justice Aminuddin Khan assured that the court would devote a full day to the case and Khawaja Haris requested an additional day for preparation.
