ISLAMABAD: During a hearing on Tuesday, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench questioned whether any army officials had been held accountable for the security breaches during the May 9 protests, which targeted military facilities, including the residence of the Lahore corps commander. He also inquired if alternative measures, beyond firing, were taken to prevent protesters from damaging military properties, suggesting that there may be a mastermind behind the unrest.
The case concerns intra-court appeals (ICAs) challenging the Supreme Court’s October 23, 2023 ruling, which declared the trial of civilians by military courts for their involvement in the May 9 violence as unconstitutional. This hearing is part of a broader review by a seven-judge Constitutional Bench.
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, representing the Ministry of Defence, informed the court that no serving military officers had been charged over the damage to military installations. He emphasized that the armed forces had shown restraint, as the protesters did not cause harm to individuals during the unrest. Haris further explained that military courts could try civilians who interfere with military operations or target defense assets, and the mastermind behind the violence would also face trial by a military court.
Justice Musarrat Hilali raised a question regarding military jurisdiction over a civilian attempting to steal a soldier’s rifle, even if they didn’t intend to disarm the soldier. She also asked if the May 9 protesters fully understood the consequences of their actions or were simply following the crowd.
The counsel clarified that such protesters were not tried by military courts, and their intent would be determined by their actions and behavior. Justice Rizvi referred to the F.B. Ali case, noting that it dealt with a period of civil martial law, following which attempts were made to remove Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the civil martial law administrator.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that it was the Supreme Court’s responsibility to assess whether sections 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA), which allow for military trials of civilians accused of offences related to military personnel or defense establishments, were constitutional.
In its October 2023 ruling, the Supreme Court deemed these sections of the PAA ultra vires (beyond constitutional authority). Justice Mandokhail also raised concerns about extending the scope of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) into the PAA without constitutional backing. The counsel referred to the 1999 Sheikh Liaquat Hussain case, where the Supreme Court had previously upheld military trials for civilians connected to the armed forces or national defense.
