In a bold move, the Pakistan government has formally appealed to the Supreme Court against a recent landmark decision. On October 23, a five-member bench declared the trial of civilians in military courts as “null and void.” The court ordered authorities to shift cases, including those related to Imran Khan’s supporters involved in the May 9 protests, to ordinary criminal courts.
The Ministry of Defence, in its intra-court appeal, has called for the revocation of the October 23 decision and the restoration of sections of the Official Secrets Act deemed illegal. Additionally, the ministry urged the Supreme Court to reinstate Section 59(4) of the Army Act. The petition contends that declaring certain sections illegal would harm the country, emphasizing the potential repercussions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling directed that individuals connected to the May 9 and 10 events, numbering 103 persons, should face trial in criminal courts established under ordinary or special law. This decision followed violent protests where hundreds of Imran Khan’s supporters attacked military and government installations, including torching a general’s house.
This appeal from the defence ministry comes on the heels of similar requests from the caretaker Sindh government and the Shuhada Forum, Balochistan. Both entities urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment declaring the trials of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.
Critics argue that the legal battle underscores broader tensions surrounding the use of military courts and their transparency. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, along with others, has voiced concerns about the lack of transparency in military trials. The government’s decision to resort to military courts was made during the tenure of Shehbaz Sharif, who completed his term in August.
Notably, on November 15, senators from major political parties in Pakistan protested against a resolution rejecting the Supreme Court’s verdict on military courts. The resolution called for an immediate withdrawal of the court’s decision.
