The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on Friday conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts of 85 civilians who were still in custody for their alleged involvement in last year’s May 9 riots. A significant development in Pakistan’s legal and political landscape. This decision is “conditional,” meaning it likely includes specific stipulations to ensure compliance with the constitution and fair trial standards. The May 9 riots, triggered by the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, saw widespread violence and attacks on military and civilian installations. In response, the government allowed the prosecution of civilians under military laws, a move that raised concerns about human rights and constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court’s involvement demonstrates an attempt to balance state security concerns with citizens’ constitutional rights. The ruling could have broader implications for the judicial oversight of military courts, the treatment of political dissent, and the accountability of civilian participants in political violence. The Supreme Court’s conditional approval for military courts to announce verdicts for the civilians linked to the May 9 riots carries several legal, political, and societal consequences. This ruling could set a precedent for trying civilians in military courts, raising concerns about bypassing the regular judicial system. Critics argue that trying civilians in military courts violates fundamental rights, particularly the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. This decision might face further legal challenges. The “conditional” aspect of the ruling suggests some oversight to ensure that the military court’s decisions adhere to constitutional principles. However, its effectiveness in practice remains to be seen. The decision could deepen divisions between the state and opposition, particularly PTI, whose supporters were central to the May 9 events. PTI and its sympathizers may view the military court verdicts as a form of political victimization, further eroding trust in state institutions. The ruling may embolden the military’s role in political and judicial matters, potentially altering the civil-military balance in Pakistan. Allowing military courts to try civilians risks normalizing the erosion of civil liberties and due process in Pakistan. Depending on the severity of the verdicts, this could either deter future protests or fuel further unrest, particularly among PTI supporters and broader civil society groups advocating democratic principles. Critics may question whether military courts are the appropriate forum for ensuring justice, leading to skepticism about the legitimacy of the verdicts. Global human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, may intensify criticism of Pakistan for allowing civilians to be tried under military laws. Democratic nations and institutions might view this as a step back for Pakistan’s democratic and judicial development, potentially affecting international partnerships . Establish a clear framework where higher civilian courts, such as the Supreme Court or High Courts, have the authority to review military court verdicts for adherence to constitutional principles and fair trial standards. Ensure military court proceedings are documented and open to judicial review, preventing arbitrary decisions. Shift cases involving civilians from military courts to special civilian anti-terrorism or criminal courts designed to handle sensitive cases efficiently and transparently. Enhance the capacity of civilian courts to handle complex cases, reducing the need for military courts. Guarantee the accused have access to competent legal representation and are informed of their rights throughout the trial process. Invite neutral observers or human rights organizations to monitor trials, ensuring fairness and building public confidence. Establish a commission to investigate the May 9 riots, addressing grievances, identifying systemic issues, and recommending reforms to prevent recurrence. Focus on holding only those directly involved in violence accountable, avoiding blanket accusations that could appear politically motivated. Initiate dialogue between political parties, civil society, and the military to address political polarization and find mutually acceptable solutions. Consider leniency for those with minor roles in the unrest, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. Examine how other democracies handle politically sensitive cases while maintaining rule of law and human rights. Adopting best practices could strengthen Pakistan’s judicial and political institutions. Ensure trials and legal procedures comply with Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights treaties. Promote public understanding of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and peaceful protest mechanisms to prevent future unrest. Encourage responsible journalism to reduce misinformation and polarization. Amend laws to clearly define the limits of military court jurisdiction, ensuring they are used only in extraordinary circumstances and not for regular civilian matters. The bench comprising Justice Aminuddin, Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan , specified that the verdicts of the military courts would be subject to its final decision on the appeals against the Oct 23, 2023 ruling. Passing directives at the end of hearing, Justice Aminuddin Khan, who is heading the constitutional bench, said, “Suspects who can be accorded concessions in their sentences, should be given so and released. “Suspects who cannot be released should be moved to jails once their sentence has been pronounced,” he added. directives allow military courts to pronounce verdicts, including those already acquitted, in trials that have been pending for more than a year.In a widely praised ruling last year, a five-member SC bench comprising Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha Malik had unanimously declared that trying the accused civilians in military courts violated the Constitution. The apex court had declared that the accused would not be tried in military courts but in criminal courts of competent jurisdiction established under the ordinary or special law of the land.
Amjad Rana
No Comment