Controversial justice
FOLLOWING a nod from the apex court, a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) has announced its decision to sentence 25 PTI supporters to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment for their involvement in the May 9 violence last year. ISPR, the military’s media wing, has described the sentences as “an important milestone in dispensation of justice”.
On the other hand, the trial of civilians by a military court has been seen as controversial with many describing it as a travesty of justice. The verdict carries far-reaching implications for the country on both the internal and external fronts, and raises questions about the rule of law and the ‘democratic process’ in the country. In fact, the dispensation of justice outside the civilian framework can be seen as a manifestation of the rising spectre of authoritarianism in the country.
While the Supreme Court had allowed military courts to announce verdicts in the concluded trials of 85 PTI supporters on charges of attacking army installations, it had made such verdicts conditional on the Supreme Court’s final decision on the legality of military courts.
It is the first time in Pakistan that civilians are facing such a form of justice under a civilian dispensation. Moreover, the decision by the newly formed constitutional bench of the top judiciary, allowing the FGCM to pronounce its ruling while a petition against military trials is still pending, has been questioned, as it has been seen as virtually endorsing such a form of justice for civilians. This can prove to be damaging for our justice system.
Moreover, there is the question of due process for the convicted, with many asking whether the secret trials followed the legal procedure and if those found guilty had been given their legal rights. Surely they retain the right to appeal under the law and the Constitution. But the overall question remains: can civilians be tried by military courts while the decision of the apex court is awaited?
Western countries have rightly pointed out that such arbitrary trials lack transparency.
This is only the first phase. There are scores of other political prisoners whose fate hangs in the balance. There have also been reports that cases against some top PTI leaders — including the former prime minister Imran Khan — who have been referred to as “the mastermind and planners” of the May 9 violence in the ISPR press release, will also be tried under the FGCM.
If true, it would be the first time a former prime minister in the country would be standing trial under such a judicial forum. Many of the detainees face terrorism charges. According to some media reports, former ISI chief retired Lt-Gen Faiz Hameed could also be implicated in the May 9 case.
The former spymaster, who was detained earlier, is currently facing court-martial proceedings on charges of “engaging in political activities”. The plot thickens following reports of him also being interrogated for his possible role in planning the attacks on the defence installations.
Meanwhile, the timing of the trial has raised eyebrows. To many, what is more important is the message being conveyed. They point out that the convictions of the PTI supporters in the May 9 incident were announced in the bloody aftermath of the Nov 26 incident in Islamabad, in which a number of protesters are believed to have died in a crackdown by law enforcement.
The verdict has brought the May 9 incident into renewed focus. It has been more than 18 months since that incident of widespread violence swept parts of the country. Several installations, which included GHQ and the Lahore corps commander’s official residence, were targeted simultaneously across the country that day.
However, a public inquiry into how security was breached at the highly guarded security installations is still pending. The question is whether it was just a spontaneous demonstration of public anger against the detention of Imran Khan or were the events that day also a reflection of growing anti-establishment sentiments. Moreover, reports that some senior-level officers, too, were purged in connection with the incident gave the episode an intriguing twist, especially as it is not known if any were convicted under the FGCM.
There is no objection to army officers being tried by military courts. But there is no legal justification for civilians, including those allegedly involved in the violence that day, to be also tried under military rules. The May 9 incident is being used by the government and the security establishment as a convenient political tool with which to beat the PTI.
Unsurprisingly, these controversial trials have also drawn criticism from the Western countries, which have rightly pointed out that such arbitrary trials lack transparency and do not heed the requirements of justice. The US has joined Britain and the European Union in censuring Pakistan for the conviction of civilians by the FGCM. This brings our entire judicial system under scrutiny.
The country now faces growing pressure from the international community to fulfil its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “In the determination of any criminal charge against him [an individual], or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Perhaps, the biggest concern arising from the convictions lies in the criticism from the EU — one of Pakistan’s largest export markets. There are fears that the trials could cause Pakistan to lose its GSP-Plus status that allows duty-free exports from the country. The facility is linked with Islamabad adhering to human rights and continuing the democratic process in the country. Unfortunately, it seems that neither the government nor the security establishment is willing to take a step back from the game of controversial politics.
The writer is an author and journalist.
Published in Dawn, December 25th, 2024