With two judges dissenting, the Pakistan Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Wednesday gave its go-ahead for civilians involved in the May 9, 2023, riots to be tried in military courts.
The case pertains to the military trials and the subsequent sentencing of civilians for their role in attacks on army installations during the riots that followed ex-premier Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023.
The 5-2 ruling came as the CB accepted a set of 38 intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal and provincial governments as well as Shuhada Forum Balochistan, among others, against the widely-praised October 2023 ruling by a five-judge bench that unanimously declared that trying the accused civilians in military courts violated the Constitution.
The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, had been reviewing whether the trial of civilians in military courts was Constitutional or not.
Justice Aminuddin announced the short order, while Justices Mandokhail and Afghan dissented from the verdict and wrote a separate note.
In its verdict, the CB also restored sections of the Army Act previously struck down by the apex court.
On December 13, 2024, the SC’s constitutional bench conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts of 85 civilians who were in custody for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots.
Subsequently, on December 21, military courts sentenced 25 civilians to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for their involvement. Days later, another 60 civilians were handed jail terms for a similar period over the matter.
On January 2, the mercy petitions of 19 accused were accepted on humanitarian grounds, while 48 other pleas have been processed to Courts of Appeal.
The sentencing of civilians by military courts was not only condemned by the PTI, but the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union also raised concerns, saying the move contradicted international laws.
