May 9 riots : The Supreme Court Hearings

[ghazi52]

May 9 riots: 6-member SC panel seeks larger bench for appeals against military trial verdict

Abdullah Momand
April 24, 2024

A six-member bench of on Wednesday decided that a larger bench should hear a set of intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the court's Oct 23 unanimous ruling that had nullified the military trials of civilians involved in the May 9 riots, and referred the matter to bench reconstitution committee.

The development came as the existing bench — led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Azhar Hasan Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan — resumed hearing the appeals.

The case pertains to the trial of more than 100 civilians for their alleged role in attacks on army installations during the riots that followed ex-premier Imran Khan's arrest on May 9 last year.

In a widely praised ruling last year, a five-member SC bench — comprising Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Yahya Afridi, Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha Malik — had unanimously declared that trying the accused civilians in military courts was ultra vires the Constitution.

The apex court had declared that the accused would not be tried in military courts but in criminal courts of competent jurisdiction established under the ordinary or special law of the land.

However, on December 13, in a 5-1 majority verdict, the SC conditionally suspended its own Oct 23 ruling — albeit by a different bench — pending a final judgement as it heard a set of ICAs.

The appeals against the verdict had been filed by the then-caretaker federal government as well as the provincial ones in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab. Sindh had denied filing a purported plea on the same matter and was not included among the petitions taken up earlier. The defence ministry had also moved an ICA, requesting the apex court to suspend the verdict's operation during the pendency of the appeal.

In January, a petition was filed by Faisal Siddiqui on behalf of some of those challenging the trials to restrain federal and provincial governments from engaging a private counsel to plead the matter.

On Jan 29, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, who has since retired, referred the ICAs back to a three-judge committee for the constitution of a larger bench.

In March, former CJP Jawwad S. Khawaja, who is one of the petitioners to challenge the military trials, had requested the apex court for an early hearing of the appeals, contending that the continued presence of civilians in military custody was "beyond compensation".

In a subsequent hearing, the SC had asked the federal government for information about suspects who had been awarded short jail terms or were awaiting release or acquitted.

During the same hearing, KP Additional Advocate General Syed Kauser Ali Shah had submitted a letter expressing the provincial government's intention to withdraw the appeal against the Oct 23 ruling.

On March 27, the SC had conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts in the cases. It had also modified its Dec 13 injunction, ordering that military courts can commence trials but they will not convict or acquit any suspect until the pendency of government-instituted ICAs.

Subsequently, on April 8, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had furnished a list of 20 suspects who had been released so that they could celebrate Eidul Fitr with their families, after they served a major part of their sentence while the remaining period of their punishment was remitted by Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Asim Munir.

Among the 20 individuals, four belonged to KP while all other 16 hailed from Punjab. They were released in KP and Punjab on April 7 and 6, respectively.

In the hearing today, AGP Awan and ex-CJP Khawaja's lawyer Khwaja Ahmed Husain appeared before the court. Senior counsel Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, one of the petitioners challenging the trials, was also present.

Today's hearing
At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan informed the apex court that 20 suspects were released before Eidul Fitr and had returned to their homes.

He recalled that the details about those released had been submitted to the court through an application.

Justice Mazhar then asked the AGP, "Is there no case against the released suspects now?"

Here, Ahsan said that the suspects had been "sent home after turning them into convicted persons".

The senior counsel claimed that a youth was "convicted without trial and was now in hiding".

"Whatever has happened, has taken place in a very haphazard manner," Ahsan lamented.

Justice Aminuddin asked if the youth Ahsan was referring to was included in the list of the released suspects, to which the counsel replied in the affirmative.

The court then made the AGP's statements part of the case record.

At this point, ex-CJP Khawaja's lawyer objected to the constitution of the bench.

The counsel requested the apex court that a nine-member bench hear the ICAs and they be referred to the three-judge committee constituted under the Practice and Procedures Act 2023 for bench reconstitution.

The SC then sought copies of the verdicts issued so far by the military courts. Ahsan and other petitioners' lawyers requested the court to include the verdicts' copies of the 20 released individuals in the case record.

At this, Justice Waheed said, "Let us first find out what procedure was followed in the trials."

Subsequently, the appeals were referred to the SC committee for a larger bench's formation.

May 9 riots: 6-member SC panel seeks larger bench for appeals against military trial verdict

Refers the matter to the court's bench reconstitution committee.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

May 9 riots: SC reserves verdict on military trials case, will announce decision this week​

Umer Mehtab
May 5, 2025


The Supreme Court’s (SC) Constitutional Bench on Monday reserved its verdict on the appeals against the decision to declare the trial of civilians in military courts null and void, saying it would announce the verdict later this week.

The development came as the CB resumed hearing a case pertaining to the military trials and the subsequent sentencing of civilians for their role in attacks on army installations during the riots that followed ex-premier Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023.


The CB resumed hearing a set of 38 intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal and provincial governments as well as Shuhada Forum Balochistan, among others, against the widely-praised Oct 23, 2023, ruling by a five-judge bench that unanimously declared that trying the accused civilians in military courts violated the Constitution.

The bench — led by Justice Aminuddin and also including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan — is reviewing whether the trial of civilians in military courts is constitutional or not.

The hearing
At the outset of today’s hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan said he would begin by speaking about what happened on May 9.

“Our country is in a state of war almost all year round,” he said. “Army installations were attacked under a well-thought-out plan; on May 9, 49 places were attacked from 3pm onwards,” he said.

He noted that a prime minister had been hanged in Pakistan — referring to the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto— but even then there was no such protest. “No political party had attacked the army in the past.”

The attorney general further referenced Pakistan’s political history, saying that all parties had been banned during the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD).

“The entire MRD leadership was in chains, Asghar Khan was under house arrest for three and a half years,” the AGP said. “Even during this time, no one took a step like people did on May 9.”

“Even if this was a reaction to May 9, it cannot be allowed; ours is not an ordinary country,” the AGP said. “Due to geography, we face a lot of threats.”

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the question before the court was not about whether a crime was committed, saying: “You come to the appeal, tell us about the appeal.”

As he continued his arguments, AGP Awan said that the army took departmental action for negligence in the Jinnah House attack.

“Three senior officers were retired without pension and benefits, including a lieutenant general, a brigadier and a lieutenant colonel,” he said.

“Dissatisfaction was expressed with the performance of 14 officers, dislike and distrust means that they cannot get any further promotion,” the AGP said.

To this, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the army had initiated criminal proceedings against any army officer.

The attorney general said that criminal action would have been taken only when a crime had been committed, noting that departmental action had been taken for not stopping the incidents of May 9.

“The Army Act is clear that departmental action will also be accompanied by criminal punishment,” Justice Mandokhail replied.

The attorney general then said that he would present arguments on May 9, as well as the July 21 decision and appeal.

“There were 23 incidents in Punjab, eight in KP, seven in Sindh and one in Balochistan. General Headquarters, Lahore, Mianwali Air Base, and ISI offices were attacked.

“All the incidents on May 9 were not accidental — the entire corps was inactive from 5:30pm to 9pm. If there was an external aggression on Lahore on May 9, it could not have been responded to,” the AGP said.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that at the time of Bhutto’s execution, people were making arrests and people set themselves on fire and self-immolated. “No one set property on fire at that time.”

The attorney general was in agreement, saying that his father himself had faced cases as a political activist yet it never occurred to anyone to damage the property by burning it.

Justice Hilali asked whether the gate of Jinnah House was broken open or if someone had opened it from inside.

“If someone opened it from inside, it would be a crime of collusion,” the AGP said, adding that he would check and confirm this.

Justice Mandokhail asked whether what happened on May 9 was done with the intention of committing a crime.

“Was the intention to register a protest or to attack? Maybe the intention was to protest but the matter got out of hand. It should not have gone beyond the limit but it did,” Justice Mandokhail said.

“What happened on May 9 was a crime,” AGP Awan said.

Here, Justice Afghan told the attorney general that he had gone down the wrong path.

“We did not allow anyone to talk about the merits of the May 9 incident. Talking about the merits will affect the cases in the trial and appeal. If we go into the details of May 9, many questions will arise.

“Many questions arise that you may not be able to answer, such as whether the general who retired without pension was the Lahore Corps Commander,” Justice Afghan asked.

Military courts’ sentences

On Dec 13, 2024, the SC’s constitutional bench conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts of 85 civilians who were in custody for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots.

Subsequently, on December 21, military courts sentenced 25 civilians to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for their involvement. Days later, another 60 civilians were handed jail terms of a similar period over the matter.

On January 2, the mercy petitions of 19 accused were accepted on humanitarian grounds, while 48 other pleas have been processed to Courts of Appeal.

The sentencing of civilians by military courts was not only condemned by the PTI, but the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union also raised concerns, saying the move contradicted international laws.

 

[ghazi52]

May 9 riots: SC CB rules civilians can be tried in military courts​

Umer Mehtab
May 7, 2025

This collage shows SC constitutional bench judges — namely Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan. — SC website

 

[ghazi52]

With two judges dissenting, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB) on Wednesday gave its go-ahead for civilians involved in the May 9, 2023 riots to be tried in military courts.

The case pertains to the military trials and the subsequent sentencing of civilians for their role in attacks on army installations during the riots that followed ex-premier Imran Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023.

The 5-2 ruling came as the CB accepted a set of 38 intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal and provincial governments as well as Shuhada Forum Balochistan, among others, against the widely-praised October 2023 ruling that declared that trying the accused civilians in military courts violated the Constitution.

The bench — led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and also including Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan — had been reviewing whether the trial of civilians in military courts was Constitutional or not.

Justice Aminuddin announced the 10-page short order of the majority ruling.

On the other hand, Justices Mandokhail and Afghan dissented from the verdict, dismissing the appeals in a separate order and upholding the earlier ruling that declared military trials as null and void.

That Oct 23, 2023 verdict by a five-member bench — led by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justices Munib Akhtar, Yayha Afridi, Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Ayesha A. Malik — had declared the military trials of civilians as unconstitutional by a majority of 4-1.

While the bench unanimously emphasised that the cases of the May 9 suspects will proceed before criminal courts, the majority ruling had struck down Section 2(1)d(i) and 2(1)(d)(ii) and Section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.

In today’s pivotal verdict, the constitutional bench — formed under the 26th Amendment — restored those sections of the Army Act.

The short order stated that by a majority of five judges, “Intra Court Appeal No.5/2023 and other connected appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 23.10.2023, […] is set aside.

“Whereas, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan dismissed the aforesaid Intra Court Appeals.

On December 13, 2024, the SC’s constitutional bench conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce reserved verdicts of 85 civilians who were in custody for their alleged involvement in the May 9 riots.

Subsequently, on December 21, military courts sentenced 25 civilians to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for their involvement. Days later, another 60 civilians were handed jail terms for a similar period over the matter.

On January 2, the mercy petitions of 19 accused were accepted on humanitarian grounds, while 48 other pleas have been processed to Courts of Appeal.

The sentencing of civilians by military courts was not only condemned by the PTI, but the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union also raised concerns, saying the move contradicted international laws.

 

[ghazi52]

May 9 and military courts: ​

What the SC decision means for civilians​

In a landmark yet deeply polarising decision, the SC has greenlit military trials for civilians linked to the May 9 riots — reversing its own precedent and igniting a debate over the erosion of civil liberties and judicial independence.

Dawn.com
May 9, 2025

In a momentous ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday allowed civilians accused in the May 9, 2023 riots — triggered by the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan — to be tried in military courts.

“The legal fate of some 103 individuals facing military trials remained in limbo from December 2023 till Tuesday, a period of about a year and a half,” noted Dawn’s editorial today.

The 5-2 verdict by the Constitutional Bench overturns an earlier ruling that had declared military trials of civilians null and void, and restores key sections of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) that allow military jurisdiction over certain civilian offences.

The bench not only overturned that decision but also restored three contentious provisions of the PAA that had previously been struck down. It also directed the government to introduce legislation within 45 days to ensure that civilians tried in military courts are granted the right to appeal their sentences in a high court.

However, the decision was not unanimous — the two dissenting judges, Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan — declared military court convictions “without jurisdiction” and unconstitutional. Rights groups and leaders of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) have likewise decried the ruling, citing concerns over due process.

The legal fraternity has weighed in too, warning that the judgment threatens the right to a fair trial and chips away at civilian justice system.

‘Total surrender of civilian rights’​

Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik criticised the SC’s verdict, calling it “as shambolic as it was hurried”. He added, however, that the ruling was unfortunately expected. “As many are saying out loud nowadays, the purpose of the 26th Amendment has been achieved. And with history as its witness, judges are being said to be doing the bidding of the ruling elite, once again,” he remarked.

Malik added that the verdict shows “a total surrender of civilian rights”, with “fundamental rights becoming nothing more than irrelevant provisions in a Constitution that is being treated like a book of fiction by those ordained to protect it”.

‘A setback for our justice system’​

In a similar vein, Barrister Rida Hosain said that by sanctioning the trial of civilians by military courts, “the court has surrendered our fundamental rights and displayed a complete lack of faith in the civilian justice system. The verdict is a huge setback for our justice system”.

“In a remarkable finding, the court held that the right to a fair trial is ‘fully protected’ under the Army Act. Under military law, members of the executive act as judges, trials take place behind closed doors, and there is no reasoned judgment. Fundamental rights are at the discretion of executive authorities, who grant or deny them at their whim,” she noted.

Hosain further pointed out an apparent contradiction in the judgment’s reasoning: “The court has referred the matter to Parliament for ‘considering and making’ a law providing an independent right of appeal to the High Court. If the right to a fair trial is protected in military courts, why is an independent right to appeal required?” According to her, “this is a concession by the bench, that the law, as it currently stands, does not comply with fair trial standards”.

“Civilian judges have revived a law first introduced by a military dictator, Ayub Khan, allowing the court martial of civilians. The order is rife with contradictions and undermines the principle of institutions acting within their constitutional domain,” she concluded.

‘Death of citizens’ right to a fair trial’​

Drawing on the said concerns, lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig added that the ruling “spells the death of citizens’ right to a fair trial”.

“While the announcement of the verdict coinciding with India launching an attack on Pakistan may have obviated any serious critique, the judgment gives short shrift to the ways in which military court trials offend against the right to due process and a fair trial,” he pointed out.

Like Rida, he expressed concern over the erosion of public trust in the judiciary, noting: “With serious concerns already surrounding the constitutional benches formed after the 26th Amendment, the judgment further erodes public confidence in the SC’s ability to uphold citizens’ rights”.

Baig, however, admitted that it would be remiss to not acknowledge the importance of Justice Mandokhel and Afghan’s dissents, adding, “Will the brooding spirit of the law heed their words though?”

Absence of an independent forum of appeal​

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the SC’s ruling as “devoid of any reasoning other than the regurgitation of facts as narrated by the government”. He shed light on the absence of an independent forum of appeal against such convictions rendered by military courts. “The judgement is pinned upon the hope that an admitted fundamental legal defect … will hopefully be cured,” he says.

Jaferii went on to argue that the Constitutional Benches had fulfilled their mandate. “They have given back to the establishment the ability to play judge, jury and executioner with civilians they deem worthy of their attention,” he said. Referring to the delay in the court’s decision, he added, “These benches took six months after the 26th Amendment to put this order together. It was perhaps an effort to try and make us all forget this was their raison d’être (reason for being)”.

Institutional inconsistency​

“The recent short order reveals how deep the rot runs,” commented lawyer Ahmad Maudood Ausaf.

He noted that legal scholars across the board have long maintained that military courts clash with fundamental rights — particularly the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution. “That debate has been laid bare, and I will not revisit its anatomy here,” he remarked.

Instead, he highlighted the court’s institutional inconsistency. “In a common law jurisdiction where precedent is seminal, what demands urgent attention is how, within just six months, the court has reversed its decision without any change in facts, law, or context,” he said. “Such institutional inconsistency doesn’t just confuse precedent — it erodes the trust essential for the apex court to exercise its writ”.

“Some might even argue that the court has lost its writ, or a significant part of it, as a consequence of its past decisions and their execution. And if the honourable justices continue interpreting in the same fashion, one must ask: how relevant will the apex court remain?” he said, questioning the very authority of the court in the public eye.

He also cast doubt on the timing of the ruling, stating, “At a time when Pakistan confronts a palpable external threat from India, this judgment — so hollow in reasoning and so strategically timed — feels like a quiet calculation: perhaps, under the pressure of war drums, the public would look away”.

“An effort to dismantle judicial independence​

According to lawyer Zainab Shahid the SC’s short order, is “a major setback for fundamental rights, constitutionalism and the separation of powers in Pakistan”. She argued the ruling is the result of a “two-year executive effort to dismantle judicial independence”, particularly through the 26th Amendment aimed at overturning the court’s earlier decision against military trials.

Shahid said the judgment “makes a mockery of Articles 8(5) and 10A of the Constitution,” which guarantee the right to a fair trial and prohibit suspension of fundamental rights except as clearly provided by the Constitution. “The Constitution envisions an exception for members of the armed forces — not civilians,” she stressed.

Criticising the bench’s reliance on the government’s narrative of the May 9 events, she said the court “assumes the guilt of those involved” and aims to “make an example of PTI’s protestors” while sidestepping why ordinary courts aren’t fit to try civilians.

She also flagged a “bizarre contradiction” in the ruling: while claiming military courts uphold due process, the bench still asked the government to legislate an independent right to appeal. “This convoluted judicial maneuver is more likely to be a face-saving device… than a just outcome for civilians left at the mercy of court martials,” she said.