A 7-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, has declared military trials of civilians in military courts valid. The verdict was given by a majority of 5-2, with Justice Naeemuddin Afghan and Justice Jamal Mandokhel dissenting. This decision accepts the government’s intra-court appeals and restores the Army Act in its original form. A detailed verdict will be issued later, providing further clarification on the court’s reasoning.
The case pertains to the military trial of civilians involved in the May 9 incidents, which followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from the premises of the Islamabad High Court in the Al-Qadir Trust case. The incidents resulted in widespread violence, damage to public and private property, and attacks on military installations.
In Lahore’s Model Town area, protesters burned down the PML-N office, set fire to military and civil installations, and severely damaged government and private property, resulting in at least 8 deaths and 290 injuries. Similarly, in other parts of the country, protesters clashed with law enforcement agencies, leading to the arrest of over 1,900 people. Cases were also registered against Imran Khan and his party leaders and workers for their alleged involvement in inciting violence and destruction.
The Supreme Court had constituted a 7-member constitutional bench to hear the appeals against the military trial of civilians, which began hearing the appeals on December 9. During the hearing, the court allowed the verdicts of 85 accused involved in the May 9 incidents to be pronounced, declaring that the decisions of the military courts would be subject to the verdict of the case pending in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the military courts sentenced 20 accused to 10 years in prison in the first phase, and 60 more, including Imran Khan’s nephew Hassan Khan Niazi, were sentenced to 10 years in prison in the second phase.
The court’s decision to validate military trials of civilians has significant implications for the country. The government and military authorities have maintained that trying civilians in military courts is necessary to maintain law and order and to punish those who attack military installations and personnel. However, critics argue that military trials lack transparency and undermine the rule of law. The dissenting judges in this case highlighted the concerns regarding the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians and the potential for abuse of power. As the detailed judgment is awaited, the implications of this decision will likely be debated further in legal and political circles.
