May 9 sentences

On Saturday military courts sentenced 25 individuals to punishments ranging from two to ten years for their involvement in the May 9, 2023, attacks on state installations. The May 9 riots had followed the arrest of PTI founder and chairman Imran Khan, sparking violent protests across the country. The chaos that ensued saw PTI supporters ransack and vandalise public and private property, including setting fire to the Corps Commander House in Lahore, storming GHQ, and injuring law-enforcement officers. The military’s media wing described the day as a “dark chapter” in the nation’s history. While these sentences mark the first phase of legal consequences for those involved, there have also been concerns about the process through which justice is being delivered. On its part, the PTI has consistently denied responsibility, labeling the events of May 9 as a ‘false flag operation’. This has largely been a bit of an unbelievable defence, particularly given the reaction by the PTI in the immediate aftermath of the May 9 riots. Coming back to the reservations of some critics, the ISPR has said that all the convicts who have been handed punishments retain the right to appeal and seek legal recourse as guaranteed under the law. That said, the choice to try civilians in military courts has stirred significant debate. Critics, including members of the legal fraternity and human rights advocates, argue that such trials lack transparency and contravene principles of justice. Many contend that cases of this nature should have been adjudicated in civilian courts, where due process is better safeguarded.

This debate is not new. The precedent for military trials of civilians was established after the Army Public School (APS) tragedy, when Pakistan sought to expedite justice against terrorists through military courts. This exceptional measure was justified by the judiciary’s failure to convict and punish hardened terrorists in the past. However, critics argue that these extraordinary measures should have remained limited to cases of terrorism rather than expanded to include political unrest. The recent directive from the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench to finalise cases pending trial has added urgency to this contentious process. There is no denying the gravity of the May 9 attacks, which were an assault not just on state property but also on the principle of national cohesion. Pakistan’s stability hinges on strong institutions, particularly its military, given the country’s precarious geopolitical position. A weak military could expose Pakistan to greater risks from its adversaries, including India, which is seen as a hostile neighbour with Western backing due to the strategic dynamics of the China factor.

But with all that, there is also the fact that no strength can come at the expense of democratic and legal norms. Can civilians be tried in non-civilian courts? This is a debate that is as yet unresolved. But the general idea that has come through is that the standard to not try civilians in civilian courts must needs be extremely high. The state’s commitment to transparency and fairness comes into play here. The events of May 9 were undeniably a grave affront to national stability, and safeguarding the nation is paramount and should be paramount. But the responsibility for administering justice should ideally rest with civilian institutions. This approach would ensure greater legitimacy, reduce controversy, and strengthen public confidence in rule of law. Pakistan’s path forward requires balancing accountability with justice. The judiciary must rise to the challenge of delivering swift and impartial verdicts, ensuring that perpetrators face consequences while upholding the principles of fairness and due process. Only through such measures can Pakistan navigate these turbulent times without compromising its democratic foundations.