Mass verdicts

The sentences handed down on Thursday by an anti-terrorism court in Faisalabad were expected. But that hardly makes them palatable to all. This time, the court has convicted senior PTI leaders – including Omar Ayub, Shibli Faraz, Hamid Raza and Zartaj Gul – along with over 100 party workers, many receiving sentences of up to 10 years in prison. While the prosecution claims to have proven its case ‘without any shadow of doubt’, there are a host of questions doing the rounds, around the proportionality of the process. As we had written in our previous editorial regarding the May 9 trials, "There is no doubt that what happened on May 9 was unprecedented"; the violence that targeted military installations and state buildings was unacceptable by any democratic standard and deserved a firm legal response. But ensuring accountability must go hand in hand with preserving the principles of due process and judicial independence.

The latest verdicts, similar to previous ones, raise critical concerns. Why were some opposition figures sentenced while others, charged in similar cases, were acquitted? Was there consistency in how evidence was weighed and how trials were conducted? In a democracy, especially one with Pakistan’s political history, these questions matter deeply. The credibility of justice depends not only on verdicts, but on how those verdicts are reached. The PTI has alleged that the cases are politically motivated and aimed at disrupting its upcoming August 5 mobilisation. While some of the party’s claims may be couched in political rhetoric, the broader perception that accountability is being applied selectively is not completely implausible. That perception is further compounded by the use of anti-terror laws to try civilians, a move that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has rsaid raises “serious due-process concerns".

It is vital to remember that courts and legal mechanisms should not become tools to shape political outcomes. Justice must be seen to be impartial and proportionate. If trials are conducted in a manner that appears rushed or inconsistent, or if certain leaders are seen to be targeted disproportionately, it undermines public trust in institutions meant to serve all citizens fairly. At the same time, the PTI must reflect on its own approach. The party continues to rely heavily on confrontation and mobilisation over sustained political engagement. Its rhetoric, often combative, does little to help rebuild the democratic space it seeks to reclaim. But a political party’s strategic missteps should not become a justification for sweeping punitive measures that risk looking more like political purges than legal outcomes. Not all is lost though. But for any kind of step forward, our political actors will need to also step up and show maturity, restraint and a willingness to step away from zero-sum politics. Proposals such as a National Institutional Dialogue, which would bring together key stakeholders to address fundamental issues like rule of law, judicial independence and civil-military balance, deserve serious consideration. Accountability matters. But so do fairness and consistency. If Pakistan is to move beyond its cycles of political instability, it must ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.