A seven-member Supreme Court bench convened to hear an intra-court appeal challenging the decision to try civilians involved in the May 9 incidents in military courts.
The bench engaged in an in-depth discussion, focusing on legal precedents and the jurisdiction of the Army Act.
Court Hearing
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned whether any military personnel were held accountable for the events of May 9. In response, Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defense, confirmed, “No military officer was tried in connection with the May 9 incident.” Justice Rizvi highlighted the apparent security lapse, asking, “How did civilians manage to reach the Corps Commander House unarmed?”
Khawaja Haris explained that while the protesters were accused of property damage, accountability for military personnel had not been addressed. Justice Rizvi called it a significant security failure.
Justice Musarrat Hilali inquired about the jurisdiction of military courts, asking, “If a soldier has a disagreement with a civilian in the cantonment, where would the case be heard?” Haris clarified that such disagreements differ from broader legal issues.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel raised concerns about the application of military courts to civilians, stating, “The scope of military trials is being expanded significantly.” Haris defended the practice, citing that since 1967, the Army Act has allowed civilians interfering in military affairs to be tried in military courts, even in peacetime.
The bench also discussed historical precedents, including the FB Ali case. Justice Rizvi noted, “That case occurred during the Civil Martial Law era under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.” Haris added that retired officers, considered civilians, were involved in that case. Justice Mandokhel questioned whether the current case involved anyone accused of inciting the army to cease operations. Haris responded that such charges require formal complaints under the Army Act.
Concerns were raised about the potential overreach of the Army Act. Haris referenced the Liaquat Hussain case as precedent for trying civilians in military courts for offenses related to military discipline. However, Justice Mandokhel expressed reservations, warning, “The Army Act’s scope is being extended too broadly.”
The court deliberated whether acts like attacking an army convoy or disputes at military checkpoints fall under breaches of discipline warranting military trials. Justice Rizvi emphasized the need to identify the masterminds behind the events of May 9, stating, “There must be a mastermind, and their trial would also occur in a military court.”
As the session concluded, the judges underscored the importance of defining clear criteria for trying civilians in military courts. Justice Mandokhel remarked, “It remains to be determined under what circumstances civilians can be tried.”
The hearing was adjourned until January 15, leaving pivotal questions about accountability for both civilians and military personnel unresolved.
