The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s Constitutional Court has highlighted the legal and constitutional complexities surrounding trials of civilians in military courts over their alleged involvement in the May 9 attacks.
The seven-judge court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard appeals challenging the military trial process.
Judge Jamal Mandokhail stressed that the crimes committed during the May 9 incidents cannot be denied, but the crucial question remains that of the competence of the trials.
“The question is not whether a crime has been committed, but where the trial should take place,” Justice Mandokhail remarked.
The discussion focused on the 21st Amendment, which establishes the framework for military tribunals.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the amendment specifically prohibits political parties 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 guarantee a fair trial.
He cited previous cases, including the Supreme Court verdict on Liaqat Hussain, to justify the use of military courts.
However, the bench requested clarification on the conformity of this measure with constitutional principles.
Judge Musarrat Hilali highlighted the public fear and chaos during the events of May 9, including arson, looting and attacks on government properties.
She questioned the outcome of trials for crimes such as theft and property damage unrelated to military installations.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi drew attention to the seriousness of the attacks, citing the burning of the corps commander’s residence in Lahore and the coordinated assaults in several cities.
“These were not ordinary protests but targeted attacks on state security,” he said, referring to evidence presented by the Defense Ministry, including photographs of the destruction.
The Defense Ministry has argued that military courts focus on cases involving violence against sensitive and restricted areas.
However, Justice Rizvi questioned whether the civilians involved had been afforded all their constitutional rights, including access to appeal mechanisms.
Justice Ayesha Malik expressed reservations over specific provisions of the Army Act, such as sections 2(1)(d)(1) and 2(1)(d)(2), arguing that they could conflict with the principles of a fair trial.
She questioned whether adequate notice and representation had been provided to civilians tried under these articles.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar raised additional questions about the dual jurisdiction of military and civilian courts.
He questioned whether offenses involving both military and civilians were judged separately and whether the evidence provided distinguished 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 about politics but a criminal offense,” he argued.
The Defense Ministry also presented video evidence of armed civilians attacking military sites.
Justice Hasan Rizvi asked whether the evidence showed any casualties or injuries among military personnel, to which Haris responded in the affirmative, saying the armed attacks resulted in injuries and damage.
The justices appeared divided on the broader implications of the military trials. Justice Mandokhail questioned why similar attacks on institutions like Parliament had not been tried in military courts, calling for consistency in the application of the law.
The hearing ended with proceedings adjourned until Monday, allowing time for further deliberations.
Justice Aminuddin Khan assured that the bench would devote a full day to the case, with Khawaja Haris seeking an additional day for preparation.
