The Supreme Court of Pakistan continued hearing intra-court appeals on Tuesday against its October 23, 2023, ruling that nullified the trial of civilians by military courts for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots. The seven-judge constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, examined the legal implications of trying civilians in military courts.
During the proceedings, Justice Mandokhail emphasized that crimes must be punished irrespective of the identity of the perpetrator or the court handling the trial. He questioned, “Regardless of who committed the crime, there should be a punishment for it. What difference does it make where the trial is held?”
His remarks came as Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, representing the petitioners, concluded his arguments. Siddiqi urged the court to transfer cases of civilians who received maximum sentences to anti-terrorism courts (ATCs), while those who had already served their sentences should be considered “past and closed transactions.”
Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Abid Shahid Zuberi represented petitioner Bushra Qamar, while Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman appeared on behalf of the state.
The debate centered on the jurisdiction and fairness of military trials for civilians. Siddiqi argued that cases related to the May 9 riots primarily involved vandalism and should not fall under military jurisdiction. He maintained that military courts should only handle cases where national defense is at risk.
Justice Mazhar inquired about the number of suspects still facing trial. Siddiqi stated that 105 individuals were initially tried in military courts, out of which 20 had been released. However, AAG Rehman clarified that an additional 19 suspects had also been released following the acceptance of their mercy petitions. Currently, 66 suspects remain in jail.
Siddiqi referred to the Offer of Judgment law in the United States, which allows parties to settle cases before the court issues a final ruling. He suggested that Pakistan could explore similar alternatives to court-martial.
Responding to Justice Mandokhail’s question about the significance of trial venues, Siddiqi stressed that the difference between civil and military trials was like the “difference between earth and sky.” He argued that civilian courts operate independently, whereas military trials are held within a system controlled by the armed forces.
The court also reviewed earlier statements by Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan regarding legislation to ensure the right to appeal against military court sentences. When the military announced its verdicts, it assured that all convicts retained the right to appeal and access legal recourse.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court conditionally allowed military courts to announce reserved verdicts for 85 civilians still in custody for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots. These individuals received prison sentences ranging from two to ten years. A week later, 19 convicts were granted clemency on humanitarian grounds.
This case has sparked extensive debate among Supreme Court judges. Last week, Justice Mandokhail stated that any accused person must have the right to appeal their charges before a high court. In January, he had also remarked that “the executive cannot play the role of the judiciary.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan previously noted that military trials were “similar” to those in civilian courts, while Justice Aminuddin had questioned the rationale for trying civilians and military personnel in separate courts for the same offense.
After Siddiqi concluded his arguments, Zuberi began presenting his case on behalf of petitioner Bushra Qamar. The court adjourned the hearing until Wednesday, when Zuberi is set to continue his submissions.
This case remains a crucial test for Pakistan’s legal system, as it examines the constitutional validity of military trials for civilians and the broader implications for justice and human rights.
