Islamabad: During the hearing of an intra-court appeal against the military trials of civilians, Supreme Court Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that military courts’ trials of civilians are not explicitly prohibited under international law.
The seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, listened to arguments in the appeal against the military trials, with senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja representing Arzam Junaid, a convicted defendant.
Background on Military Trials
In 2023, the apex court’s constitutional bench allowed conditional permission for military courts to announce verdicts in cases related to 85 suspects involved in the May 9 riots. However, the court had emphasized that these military court judgments were contingent upon the final verdict of the Supreme Court regarding the ongoing appeals.
Following this, the military courts convicted 85 PTI activists with sentences ranging from two to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for their involvement in the protests that targeted army installations and monuments.
In January 2024, the military authorities accepted the mercy pleas of 19 out of 67 convicts involved in the riots, citing humanitarian grounds, as stated by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
Legal Arguments in Court
During the hearing, Salman Akram Raja argued that military trials violate civilians’ fundamental rights and contravene international standards for fair trials, which require transparent, independent, and open legal proceedings. He referred to rulings from international courts, citing how military tribunal verdicts can be challenged in civilian courts, with some countries being compelled to reform their military trial systems after such rulings.
In response, Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked about the repercussions of disregarding international principles. Raja replied that failing to meet international standards would render the trial unfair. Justice Mandokhail further inquired about the consequences for states violating such standards, to which Raja explained that some international principles are binding, while others are non-binding.
Justice Afghan’s View
Referring to Article 10-A of the Constitution, Raja stated that the right to a fair trial is enshrined in Pakistan’s Constitution, drawing on international principles. However, Justice Afghan pointed out that international law does not explicitly prohibit court-martials of civilians.
Raja also referenced UK practices, where military trials are overseen by independent judges, not military personnel, contrasting this with the situation in Pakistan, where civilians such as deputy commissioners and tehsildars were historically authorized to conduct criminal trials, which led to his argument that if civilians could conduct trials, military officers could as well.
Concerns Raised by the UN
Raja also highlighted a report by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which criticized Pakistan’s military courts for lacking independence and urged the government to grant bail to individuals held in military custody.
The hearing concluded after Raja completed his arguments, with the bench adjourning the session.
