Supreme Court Questions Security Failures in May 9 Incident During Military Trial Case

ISLAMABAD: In a hearing at the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justices discussed the trial of civilians in military courts, with particular focus on the May 9 incidents. The case is being heard by a seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan. The court is examining whether civilians accused of certain crimes should be tried in military courts, a subject that has generated considerable debate.

During the hearing, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi remarked that the incident involving nine individuals entering the Corps Commander House on May 9 highlighted a security failure. He questioned how civilians managed to access such a sensitive location without proper security measures in place. “The fact that people were able to enter the Corps Commander House is a clear failure in security,” he stated.

The counsel for the Ministry of Defence, Khawaja Haris, referred to the 1967 law that permits military trials of civilians in cases involving military discipline. He argued that anyone disrupting military duties, including soldiers, should face military courts. However, the bench raised concerns about the broad application of the Army Act, questioning whether its scope could extend to every act of civilian disobedience.

The justices also explored the details of the May 9 events, asking whether any military officers were involved in the incident. Khawaja Haris responded that there had been no trial of military officers in connection with the May 9 disturbances. He emphasized that civilians involved in damaging military property would face trial under military courts.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel noted that the case of F.B. Ali was based on collusion within military ranks, suggesting that the involvement of military personnel in such incidents must be established for a military trial to take place. He further questioned whether acts like attacking military convoys or engaging in disputes at checkpoints should be considered violations of military discipline.

As the hearing continued, the court sought clarification on how the law should be applied in cases where the involvement of military personnel in a civilian crime is not immediately clear. Justice Mandokhel stated that the broader application of the Army Act could potentially cover a wide range of incidents, complicating the legal landscape.

Read More: All Offenses Under the Army Act Apply Only to Military Officers: Supreme Court

The hearing, which delved into legal precedents and the limits of military authority, was adjourned until the following day for further deliberation. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of civilian trials in military courts, as well as the broader question of security and accountability in the country.