Pakistan's top court rejects military trials for civilians involved in May 9 riots

A five-member Supreme Court (SC) court ruled on Monday that the military trials of citizens detained following the country’s May 9 violent protests were invalid. A few hours after the case was reserved, the court declared its decision. The bench, which also included Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, and Ayesha A. Malik, was presided over by Justice Ijazul Ahsan. The court decided, by a vote of 4-1, that the May 9 suspects’ trials will go place in regular tribunals. The majority judgement had been rejected by Justice Afridi. The Army Act’s Section 2(1)(d), which describes who is covered by the Act, was likewise ruled by the court to be unconstitutional. The judge also declared Section 59(4) (civil offences) to be unconstitutional. Section 2(1)(d) of the Pakistan Army Act states: “persons not otherwise subject to this Act who are accused of seducing or attempting to seduce any person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to government, or having committed, in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan” can be tried under the secrets act. Section 59(4) states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force a person who becomes subject to this Act by reason of his being accused of an offence mentioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall be liable to be tried or otherwise dealt with under this Act for such offence as if the offence were an offence against this Act and were committed at a time when such person was subject to this Act ; and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly.” According to the court, criminal courts shall hear the cases in accordance with the nature of the offence. However, the state may still contest the judgement in front of the entire court. The petitions have been heard by a six-judge panel since June, which includes former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial. The panel was trimmed to five members after Justice Bandial retired, nevertheless. At least nine defendants who are being tried under the Army Act made a request to the Supreme Court on Sunday for the military tribunals to wrap up their cases quickly. The suspects argued in their individual petitions that they completely trusted and believed that the military authorities would uphold justice for them and the other accused parties. A total of 102 people were detained for their involvement in the attacks on military establishments, including the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, the corps commander’s residence in Lahore, the PAF Base Mianwali, and an office of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in Faisalabad, following the violence on May 9 that targeted both civilian and military installations. One of the petitioners in the case, Aitzaz Ahsan, described the ruling as “very important” in a statement to the media following its announcement, saying that it will help improve democracy, the Constitution, and the legal system. He claimed that now that the SC had ruled that no one was above the law, all institutions needed to understand this. “We fought against military courts and were opposed to them. The ruling has demonstrated that the SC has the authority to grant relief, he remarked. Ahsan claimed that despite the government’s assurances that no trials would start until the supreme court was notified, reports had claimed that they had. “The government informed the SC but after the commencement of trial. The government was supposed to inform before trials,” he told the media. After the verdict, he said, civic institutions would gain confidence and work to do a better job. He expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court for hearing the case’s petitioners and providing them an opportunity to speak. He argued that judges should be impartial and unafraid of the consequences of their decisions. He asserted that judges in military courts are not impartial. There is a colonel, and he is aware that he may be moved or kicked out of the army. The ruling made today, he said, was “positive” for the Constitution and fundamental rights and will make civilian courts stronger. Barrister Rahim stated that there were no opposing views to the Supreme Court’s ruling and that it should be implemented in accordance with the Constitution in response to a question about its execution. Ahsan Bhoon, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), told Geo News that the judgement was “absolutely correct” and in line with the Constitution. He stated that whether or not the verdict would be appealed relied on the government. He stated that when the court upheld the Supreme Court (Practise and Procedure) Act, an appeal might be filed. Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan announced at the beginning of Monday’s hearing that he would make arguments for why a constitutional modification was not necessary in the current situation. He declared that the citizens’ military trials had officially started. He said that the reasons would be included in the judgements rendered by the military tribunals. According to the AGP, a case involving an assault on a building or restricted location may also be brought before military courts. At one point, Justice Ahsan asked, “A constitutional amendment was required to try terrorists but not for civilians? I am trying to understand your argument.” AGP Awan claimed that no constitutional modification was necessary if the defendant had a “direct link” to the armed forces. He declared that the Army Act’s Section 2(1)(d)(ii) will govern the prosecution of the suspects. Then he pointed out that the suspects’ charges had been framed in a way that the court had expressed concern about. He emphasised that the trial conducted in accordance with the Army Act will satisfy the conditions of a criminal case. He added that the May 9 suspects’ trials would proceed in a manner akin to those of criminal tribunals. He declared that every requirement of Article 10-A of the Constitution (the right to a fair trial) would be met. He stated that there will be appeals of the judgement. Justice Ahsan inquired about persons who had previously faced train in military courts. “Were the accused in 2015 civilians, foreigners or terrorists?” he asked. The AGP replied that the suspects included both nationals and foreigners. He said that those tried in 2015 also included those who facilitated terrorists. The AGP was also questioned by Justice Ayesha on how he would relate his points to Article 8(3) of the Constitution. She explained that a connection to the military was required by law. Justice Ahsan stated that the Constitution safeguarded citizens’ basic rights. In August, the case’s hearing was postponed indefinitely when ex-CJP Bandial stated that the court did not want to see the Pakistan Army aim their weapons at civilians because they were there to defend the nation and its citizens. The observations were made after Pakistan’s Attorney General (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan, underlined that although soldiers had access to high-tech weapons and were trained to fire, they had shown restraint on May 9. The petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court by several individuals, including former Chief Justice of Pakistan Jawwad S. Khawaja, senior counsel Aitzaz Ahsan, Karamat Ali, Zaman Khan Vardag, Junaid Razzaq, the Supreme Court Bar Association, PTI leader Imran Khan, Hafeezullah Khan Niazi, Lt. Col. Inamul Rahiem, and Naeemullah Qureshi.