- Episode of May 9 carried out with organised planning: attorney
- Attorney general says such actions cannot be condoned.
- Mandokhail asks if criminal proceedings initiated against officers.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Monday reserved its ruling on the intra-court appeal challenging the verdict that barred the trial of civilians in military courts.
The hearing on the appeal has been completed, and a short verdict is expected to be announced within this week. Justice Aminuddin Khan, who is heading the seven-member bench hearing the case, said that a brief judgment will be delivered later this week.
During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan said that between 3pm and 7pm on May 9, attacks were carried out on 39 military installations. Of these, 23 were in Punjab, 8 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and one in Sindh. The entire episode of May 9 was carried out with organised planning.
While presenting arguments, the attorney general said that even if the events of May 9 were a reaction, such actions cannot be condoned. “Our country is not an ordinary one; due to its geography, we constantly face significant threats,” he said.
The attorney general informed the court that disciplinary action was taken by the military over negligence in the Jinnah House attack, and three senior officers were retired without pension and benefits. These included a Lieutenant General, a Brigadier, and a Lieutenant Colonel.
He further said that dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the performance of 14 officers, who will not be considered for future promotions.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether any criminal proceedings had been initiated against any officers. The attorney general replied that criminal proceedings would have taken place if a crime had been committed; the disciplinary actions were taken for failing to prevent the May 9 incident.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that under the Army Act, criminal punishment must accompany departmental action. The AGP responded that the officers who exercised restraint were the ones subjected to disciplinary action.
The court later reserved its ruling on the intra-court appeal against the verdict barring military trials of civilians.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the head of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench, Justice Aminuddin, said that a short order would be announced later this week.
Case’s background
Protests broke out nationwide on May 9, 2023, following the arrest of Imran Khan by security forces within the premises of the Islamabad High Court. Some protesters also targeted military facilities, such as the Corps Commander House in Lahore and the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. In reaction, hundreds of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders and workers were taken into custody; of which cases against 102 had been shifted from anti-terrorism courts to military courts.
There were major legal challenges to the decision to trial civilians in military courts.
Intra court appeal was first heard by five-member bench headed by Justice (retd) Tariq Masood, who then retired in March 2024.
The top court, in its unanimous verdict by a five-member bench, on October 23, 2023, declared civilians’ trials in military courts null and void after it admitted the petitions challenging the trial of civilians involved in the May 9 riots.
After the 26th Amendment the seven-member constitutional bench resumed hearings into the appeals in December 2024.
The bench formed under the 26th constitutional amendment eventually allowed these trials after the Supreme Court earlier rejected them.
The seven-judge bench had taken up more than two dozen intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal and provincial governments as well as the Shuhada Forum Balochistan. etc. against the SC’s Oct 23, 2023, verdict.
In December 2024, the apex court’s constitutional bench granted conditional permission to military courts to announce verdicts in cases involving 85 suspects allegedly involved in the May 9, 2023, riots.
In its order, the constitutional bench had said judgements of military courts would be conditional to the top court’s verdict on the cases pending before it.
Subsequently, the military courts sentenced 85 PTI activists to two to 10 years of “rigorous imprisonment” for their involvement in the May 9 protests, marking the conclusion of trials for those held in military custody over the attacks on army installations and monuments.
Later in January, the military accepted mercy pleas of 19 out of the 67 convicts sentenced in the May 9 riots case on “humanitarian grounds”, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said.
It should be noted that the seven-member SC bench members on multiple occasions have given statements that showed that trials of civilians in military courts was not unlawful.
The bench, during a hearing on January 7 this year, also reaffirmed that the civilians certainly would face military trial if they committed an offence listed under the Army Act.
Moreover, Supreme Court’s Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan during February’s hearing observed that the court martial of civilians is not barred under international principles.
In March, Supreme Court’s Justice Jamal remarked that punishment must be served regardless of where the trial takes place.
During March’s hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired about the number of people released from military courts. Civil society lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said 105 suspects were tried, of whom 20 had been freed.
However, Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan intervened and informed the court that an additional 19 had also been released, bringing the total to 39, while 66 suspects remained in prison.
