May 9 incidents: Only those whose presence proven tried by military courts: AAG

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed that 5,000 individuals were implicated in the events of May 9, but only those whose presence was proven were tried by the military courts.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman told a seven-judge constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, which on Friday heard intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the apex court’s judgment on civilians’ trial by the military courts.

The AAG said; “There are 35 FIRs and 5,000 suspects in the May 9, 2023, cases, adding that only 105 of them, whose presence was proven, were tried in military courts.”

During the proceedings, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Khawaja Haris, who represented the Ministry of Defence, to satisfy the procedure adopted by the military courts. He noted that an officer who hears the case does not announce the judgment, but refers the matter to a higher officer for passing an order.

Justice Mussarat Hilali, while expressing concern, asked; “Please also clarify who writes the decisions in military courts. To my knowledge, the case is heard by one officer, but the punishment or reward is decided by the commanding officer. How can someone who has not heard the case decide the outcome?”

Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the commanding officer overseeing trials possess the expertise to issue a death sentence? He remarked, “I have spent 34 years in this profession and still do not consider myself fully capable. Does the military officer conducting trials have the necessary experience and expertise to deliver a death sentence?” he asked.

Khawaja Haris explained that the decisions are written with assistance from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that trials in a military court were “similar” to those in a civilian court. He observed that there is also a facility to engage a lawyer of one’s choice in a court martial case. “The trials in a military court are also similar to ordinary (civilian) courts.”

However, Justice Mandokhail wondered whether an “officer presiding over a military court is competent enough to determine such harsh sentences”. Justice Hilali asked who the presiding officer is if such a trial takes place in any other country. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that all over the world, only army officers sit in courts martial. Khawaja Haris told the court that officers sitting in courts martial possessed experience of such trials.

Justice Hilali commented that in all the FIRs in the May 9 cases, all the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act were included, asking how a military trial was conducted on these provisions. “How can a military court handle cases registered under the Pakistan Penal Code and ATA?” she asked.

“The Army Act applies only to those who have violated the Official Secrets Act, and does not apply to every terrorist,” Khawaja Haris argued, adding that when a suspect is handed over into military custody, it has its own system of investigation.

KhawajaHaris remarked that past cases such as Kulbhushan Jadhav’s were also tried in a military court, while the trial was also recognised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The lawyer also mentioned that appeals against military court’s sentences have been entertained by high courts in terrorism cases.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025