ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench on Monday reserved its verdict on appeals challenging the decision to declare the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. The ruling, which will be announced later this week, addresses the legal status of trials and subsequent sentencing of civilians for their involvement in the May 9, 2023, riots following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The bench resumed hearing 38 intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, along with the Shuhada Forum Balochistan, against the October 2023 ruling that declared the trials in military courts unconstitutional. The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, includes Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan. They are reviewing the constitutionality of trying civilians in military courts.
Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan presented arguments, claiming that the attacks on army installations during the riots were premeditated and part of a larger conspiracy. He noted that 49 places were attacked on May 9, and emphasized that the country was in a state of perpetual war due to its geopolitical position. He also argued that even though political leaders had been incarcerated during the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD), there had never been such an attack on military installations.
During the proceedings, the court raised questions regarding whether the intent of the May 9 rioters was to protest or to commit a crime. AGP Awan asserted that the events of May 9 were indeed criminal acts, even if they began as protests.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the court’s focus should not be on the merits of the May 9 incidents but on whether the trials were conducted according to constitutional norms. The bench questioned the legal framework surrounding military trials and whether amendments to the Army Act could address concerns over civilian trials in military courts.
The attorney general mentioned that 86 individuals had appealed their convictions in military courts, with more expected to file appeals. He also requested that the final ruling include an “observation” on the right to appeal for those convicted by military courts.
Hafeezullah Niazi, whose son Hassaan Niazi was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a military court, also addressed the court. He expressed concerns over the legality of military trials, citing instances in the past where political attacks had been heard in civilian courts. Niazi urged the court to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the trials followed constitutional principles.
The case has garnered significant attention, both domestically and internationally, with the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union condemning the use of military courts for civilian trials, arguing that it violates international legal standar
