KEY POINTS
- Civilians in Pakistan can be tried in military courts under the Pakistan Army Act.
- May 9, 2023, events led to over 100 civilians facing military trials.
- Sentences from 2-10 years sparked debate over fair trial rights.
- International laws stress fair trials, raising concerns about military courts.
- Military accountability is swift, impartial, and applies to all ranks.
Historical Context: Military Courts and Civilian Trials in Pakistan
Pakistan has a history of trying civilians in military and special courts. During the 1953 religious riots, many civilians were tried under military laws, and special tribunals were set up in 1975 for terrorism and rebellion charges.
Some military courts, established by civilian governments, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Despite the existence of anti-terrorism courts since 1997, Pakistan’s Constitution was amended in 2015 (21st Amendment) to allow civilians to be tried in military courts for terrorism.
The 23rd Amendment in 2017 extended this for two more years which also expired in 2019. Military courts, still operational for military personnel, are also authorized to try civilians under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) of 1952.
Military courts in Pakistan operate under laws enforceable by the armed forces, distinct from the civilian legal system. While military members follow separate laws for personal civil matters, certain military laws also apply to civilians, under the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) of 1952.
Civilians can be tried under the PAA for offences such as inciting military personnel, committing crimes against the army, violating national security laws, damaging state property, or trespassing in restricted areas.
Structure and Process of Military Courts
When civilians are accused, they can be detained in military custody for up to 48 hours before a formal investigation. This period can be extended based on the commanding officer’s report. Military courts, or court-martials, consist of General, District, Field General, and Summary courts-martial.
Civilian trials typically do not occur in District or Summary courts-martial, which handle petty offences. Trials require a Judge Advocate’s presence, and judgments must be confirmed by higher authorities, who can revise, mitigate, or commute sentences.
The PAA provides some protections for the accused, such as protection against double jeopardy and the right to object to trial officers. However, objections are decided by the remaining officers and may be dismissed if the majority votes against them. This right does not apply to Summary courts-martial. In the event of a revision, the same court officers retry the case.
International Human Rights Law ensures the right to a fair trial through various instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Military trials are not prohibited, the ICCPR emphasizes that they should ensure these protections, including the presumption of innocence and the right to legal defence.
May 9 Protests and Political Implication
Twenty-five individuals involved in the May 9, 2023, attacks on state installations have been sentenced to 2 to 10 years by military courts, according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
The Field General Court Martial (FGCM) announced these punishments in the first phase, targeting suspects implicated in the violence that erupted after the arrest of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in a graft case. Over 100 civilians are reportedly undergoing military trials for their alleged roles in the protests.
The PTI has distanced itself from the attacks, including the assault on the General Headquarters (GHQ), maintaining that the party had no involvement. It has called for a judicial probe to investigate the events surrounding May 9, arguing for an impartial assessment of the violence and the ensuing legal actions.
The 25 accused who have been sentenced will have the right to appeal. They can take their case to the High Court, which will review the records, evaluate the sentences, and determine if any inconsistencies exist.
Although military courts were initially not allowed to announce sentences, the Supreme Court recently ruled that they could proceed with sentencing. While the accused were given an opportunity to defend themselves, some argue that they were not given a fair chance to do so.
Ideally, they should have been given a proper opportunity to defend themselves, but delaying the process indefinitely was not appropriate so it is good that the verdict has been given.
Military’s process of accountability and justice is swift, thorough, confidential, and impartial, not considering anyone’s rank. This process is the same for everyone, from soldiers to officers, as exemplified by FGCM proceeding against Lt Gen (R) Faiz Hameed. Given the nature of offences, no one can escape punishment. The same level of accountability is expected from civil courts.
Repercussions for PTI
The recent developments in the aftermath of the May 9 events have opened a Pandora’s box of legal and political repercussions, particularly concerning the potential implications for a major political party.
The unprecedented trial of civilians in military courts, previously reserved for hardened terrorists, marks a significant turning point. The convictions handed down are not only drastic but also suggest a broader trajectory that may link these events to the party’s leadership.
This raises critical questions about accountability and political fallout. If such connections are substantiated, it could fundamentally reshape the party’s future and its role in the political landscape, leaving a lasting impact on the nation’s democratic framework.
