SC Questions Why May 9 Accused Were 'Specifically' Tried in Military Courts, Breaking Precedent

SC Questions Why May 9 Accused Were ‘Specifically’ Tried in Military Courts, Breaking Precedent

On Thursday, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court enquired as to why the civilians who were involved in the riots on May 9 were “specifically” tried under the military tribunals, which is in direct opposition to precedent.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench conditionally permitted military tribunals to issue reserved verdicts for 85 civilians who were still in custody after being accused of participating in the May 9 riots in 2023 on December 13.A total of 25 civilians were sentenced to prison terms varying from two to ten years on December 21 for their involvement in violent attacks on military installations during the May 9 riots by military courts. Another 60 civilians were sentenced to prison terms of two to ten years for their participation in the nationwide rioting a week later.

The mercy petitions of 19 convicts implicated in the May 9 cases were accepted on January 2 on humanitarian grounds.On Tuesday, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that executives were not entitled to “play the role of the judiciary” when he heard the appeals against the decision to try civilians in military tribunals.The intra-court appeal against the decision to try civilians in a military court was resumed today by a seven-member constitutional tribunal chaired by Justice Aminuddin Khan.Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi stated at the outset of the hearing that the nation had previously experienced terrorist attacks; however, the perpetrators were prosecuted in conventional courts.

He enquired, “Please provide information regarding the location of the hearings for the attacks.” He also stated that if the terrorists responsible for the attacks were tried in regular courts, “why were the individuals involved in May 9 required to appear in military courts?”Justice Mandokhail enquired whether “special evidence” was being presented in the military trials about the disparity in decisions between the military and antiterrorism tribunals.Advocate Khawaja Haris, who represented the defense ministry, read out the five-member SC decision that declared military trials of civilians null and invalid during the hearing.

He contended that all rights were fundamental and explicated by the order.The constitutional bench called into question the military trial of the “specific” individuals accused of May 9.Justice Mussarat Hilali enquired, “Where was the decision made to determine who would be tried in the military courts and who would not?”

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked, “Where did the distinction originate for some to be tried in the ATC while others to be tried in the military courts, given that the first information report (FIR) filed against the May 9 culprits was bundled together?”

Conversely, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan enquired of the defense ministry’s attorney regarding the number of individuals who were implicated in the May 9 incidents. Additionally, he enquired whether any ATC order had been issued against individuals the military tribunals tried.

Justice Mandokhail questioned the defense ministry lawyers regarding the individual who initiated the procedure of placing an individual under military custody. While this was occurring, Justice Hilali requested an instance in which the constitution was not suspended during the military trial of a civilian.

“There were terrorist attacks on a variety of installations, such as the General Headquarters and Karachi base. Could you please provide the location of the hearings on these attacks?” Justice Rizvi enquired.

“There was a conspiracy to hijack an army chief’s plane, and that case was tried in an ordinary court. You were the lawyer of one of the parties,” he stated.

“What actions did the May 9 individuals take if the trial were conducted in a conventional court?”In the interim, Justice Mazhar requested an FIR for each case.

“The accused is being acquitted by the anti-terrorism court and subsequently sentenced by the military court.” Is the military court receiving any specific evidence? Justice Mandokhail enquired.

“What is the reason for the lack of strengthening of anti-terrorism courts?” he inquired. “After examining the evidence, the courts are required to decide.”Justice Rizvi remarked, “Is the May 9 incident more severe than terrorism because the trials of the accused were conducted in military courts?”Ahmad Awais, the Advocate General of Punjab (AGP), contended that criminals in solitary confinement were permitted to exit the facility after breakfast at 7:30 a.m. and remain outside until 5 p.m. during the hearing.

“Which lawn is it?” Is it not the lawn with the death cell? Justice Mandokhail enquired.

“No, sir, this is not the lawn that you have seen. There is a tuckshop, and you can also drink coffee,” he stated.Advocate Faisal Siddiqui asked the AAG, “Do you mean that the jail has a home-like atmosphere?”According to Justice Hilali, if the AAG was discovered to be a liar, the court would request a report from the prison’s reform committee.

“I have been practicing for 30 years; why would I fabricate an account?” AAG Punjab stated.

Justice Hilali said she had previously worked as an AAG in KP. She stated, “We are the government’s lawyers; therefore, we are obligated to assist the government.”The analyst, Hafeezullah Niazi, then took the podium and stated that “all of the accused were detained in the high-security zone.”Niazi stated, “We are prohibited from signing the power of attorney.”Justice Mazhar stated that no one prevented them from transferring the power of attorney.

The counsel responded, “Brigadier Javed Akbar was prohibited from signing the power of attorney.”The AAG responded by stating that counsel was granted access to a meeting.Justice Mandokhail stated that the superintendent was required to provide facilities by the correctional manual.The court subsequently postponed the hearing until the following day.