On the ominous date of May 9, a series of disturbing incidents unfolded following the arrest of Imran Khan. Guided mobs comprising PTI workers, in a deliberate and malicious manner, engaged in the vandalization and arson of public and military properties. The shocking defacement and desecration included Shuhada Monuments, attack on Jinnah House, attacks on General Headquarters and other military installations nationwide and the burning of Radio Pakistan Building, Peshawar. This horrifying spectacle deeply affected every patriotic Pakistani, drawing comparisons to infamous events like the 9/11 attacks and those orchestrated by the TTP. Some political leaders even likened the events to attacks carried out by India against the country, revealing the distressing involvement of the nation’s own political party in a crime against its military and state symbols.
The planners seemed oblivious to far-reaching implications on national security, the economy and the country’s international standing. The events of May 9 conveyed a negative message globally, tarnishing the image of Pakistan Army and letting foreign and local detractors to question the security of the nation’s nuclear assets. Economically, the social unrest triggered by such events led to a decline in a country’s GDP in subsequent months, exacerbating the already precarious economic situation.
Interestingly, PTI’s appointed officials immediately denied any involvement as the nation watched the events unfold. These officials, along with a few like-minded intellectuals and lawyers, dismissed the accusations as a conspiracy to discredit PTI, attributing the blame to the government. Even the PTI Chairman, in an attempt to evade responsibility, claimed in court that he was unaware of the events due to the absence of his mobile phone. However, leaked audio conversations later exposed the falsehood of these claims.
While concerns have been raised regarding the trial of PTI culprits in military courts, the response provides a comprehensive and detailed examination of each issue. The argument maintains that the legal procedures and frameworks in place ensure a fair trial, adhering to both national and international standards. The necessity of military courts for swift justice in cases affecting national security is underscored, emphasizing the importance of decisive action against those responsible for the May 9 tragedy to prevent future attacks on state symbols and installations
To prevent future occurrences, the Federal Government and the Armed Forces decided to prosecute planners, instigators, abettors and perpetrators involved under the Pakistan Army Act and Official Secrets Act, following established legal procedures derived from the constitution.
While a majority of the nation, viewing the Army as a bulwark of national security, supports trying May 9 miscreants in military courts, concerns have been raised by lawyers, journalists, politicians, and human rights activists. These concerns question whether a trial conducted by military courts adheres to due process required for a fair trial, as guaranteed by Constitution. Misinterpretations of Army Act and its military justice system have fueled discontent among the masses, who fear the infringement of basic human rights and the erosion of democracy.
To address these concerns, it is essential to understand the legal framework underpinning military courts. Military Courts in Pakistan operate under the Army Act and are integrated into the udicial system. They were incorporated into the National legal system through amendments to the Army Act and the constitution in 1973. In the past, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has upheld the jurisdiction of military courts to try and sentence individuals for offenses under the Army Act.
Military courts follow a legal procedure that safeguards the rights of the accused in line with the Constitution, ensuring fairness throughout the trial process. This includes provisions for arrest, counsel access, protection against double jeopardy, presentation of charges, provision of evidence, right to a fair hearing, recording of evidence, right to appeal, judicial review and the right to file a mercy petition. Civilians tried under the Army Act undergo processes similar to those in session courts.
The legitimacy of transferring PTI culprits from civil to military courts for trials under the Pakistan Army Act and Official Secrets Act has been questioned in the public domain. Several issues raised revolve around international conventions and domestic laws, considering the legal transfer of individuals from civil to military jurisdiction.
In military courts, the accused individuals are kept strictly under legal provisions and human rights principles, with access to defense counsel and near relatives in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act Section 73 (Custody of Offenders).
Likewise, concerns raised by Amnesty International regarding the trial of civilians in military courts are baseless as the process of civilians’ trial in military courts is within the constitutional parameters of nationally enacted statutes. The offenses committed fall within the military domain, justifying the transfer of cases to military authorities under the Criminal Procedure Code. Pakistan’s adherence to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is highlighted to emphasize that the trial in military courts does not infringe upon the right to a fair trial. The legal procedures ensure basic human rights, including the right to prepare a defense and choose legal representation.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is also applicable in this context where civilians attacked military installations and in case of armed conflict. The May 9 incident is framed as an armed conflict scenario and attack on military installations, justifying the use of military courts.The transparency of military court trials is asserted, with a distinction made between open court sessions and ‘In Camera Sessions’ held for sensitive matters. The legal process is claimed to be consistent with Pakistan’s human rights obligations and international laws and standards.
While concerns have been raised regarding the trial of PTI culprits in military courts, the response provides a comprehensive and detailed examination of each issue. The argument maintains that the legal procedures and frameworks in place ensure a fair trial, adhering to both national and international standards. The necessity of military courts for swift justice in cases affecting national security is underscored, emphasizing the importance of decisive action against those responsible for the May 9 tragedy to prevent future attacks on state symbols and installations.
