Military trial of May 9 suspects ‘apt and proportionate response’, govt tells SC

The federal government on Monday told the Supreme Court that the trial of those involved in attacks on military installations, during violent protests triggered by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan on May 9, under the Army Act is an “apt and proportionate response”, in accordance with the existing constitutional framework.        

Following the May 9 mayhem in which several government buildings and army installations were vandalised, the government announced that those involved in the incidents would be tried in military courts.

Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, former chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, legal expert Aitzaz Ahsan, and five civil society members, including Piler Executive Director Karamat Ali moved the apex court seeking its order declaring the military trials unconstitutional.

Initially, a nine-member larger of the apex was formed to hear petitions against the trial of civilians in military courts. However, chief justice-in-waiting Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood refused to become part of the larger bench hearing pleas against the military court. During the third hearing of the case, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, on behalf of the federal government, raised an objection to the presence of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on the bench. In response, the senior judge of the top court recused himself from the bench. The bench once again dissolved, and the seven-member judge continued its proceedings.

In a statement submitted to the SC, the federal government termed violence against military and defence installations a “direct attack against the national security of Pakistan", and pleaded with the Supreme Court to dismiss petitions challenging the military trial of May 9 suspects.

“The trial of those accused of violence against the armed forms, …. under the Army Act, is an apt and proportionate response, in accordance with the existing (and prevalent) constitutional framework and statutory regime of Pakistan,” stated the government.

Giving reasons for setting up military courts, the federal government said, “The armed forces, under Article 245 of the constitution have been charged with the obligation to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war,” adding that the country’s constitutional framework allows perpetrators of such vandalism and violence to be tried under the provision of the Army Act to create deterrence in respect of such attacks.

“Recent episodes involving Shakeel Afridi and Kulbhushan Yadav are enough (and sufficient) evidence to indicate that foreign powers are constantly working to destabilise the armed forces and weakening our national security,” the federal government added.

The Centre also pleaded with the top court that in these circumstances the trial of May 9 suspects under the Army Act is an “apt and proportionate response”.

The federal government further stated that as a result of the violence that occurred on May 9, the total damage is estimated to be valued at Rs2,539.19 million, including Rs1,982.95 million in losses to military establishments, equipment and vehicles.

Govt demands formation of full court

In addition to this, the Centre requested the apex court to constitute a full bench to hear the petitions challenging the trial of civilians in the military courts.

The federal government, in its statement, wrote: “Without prejudice to the foregoing, the titled and connected petitions ought to be heard by the full court. One member of this bench (Justice Yayha Afridi) has also urged that the chief justice may graciously consider reconstitution of the present bench and refer these petitions to the full court.”

The apex court's larger bench will resume hearing the petitions on tomorrow (July 18).