Daily Times

Much-awaited sentencing of 25 culprits involved in the 9 May riots has drawn some meaningful criticism. As the saying goes; Justice delayed is justice denied! Saner quarters opine that the coordinated nature of attacks on military garrisons and installations across the country merited a more expeditious conclusion of the unprecedented crime. Few familiar self-style flagbearers of human rights and judicial values are raising questions on the transparency of civilians’ trials in any military court. On many accounts, criticism of the recent sentencing of 9 May rioters is erroneous and agenda-driven. Strangely, rioters are being labelled as ‘political workers’ without considering their confessed involvement in simultaneously launched attacks on more than 200 military installations. Neither the luxury of attacking military installations with full impunity is available in any law nor it is possible to distinguish political workers from the armed mob charging at the sensitive installations. Peaceful political workers restrict themselves to raising slogans, and speeches, holding placards and other universally known non-violent activities.

What happened on 9 May 2023 was neither peaceful nor political activity in any way! Blatant use of violence and coordinated attacks on military installations was nothing but a planned act of mutiny against the state. No responsible state can ignore such kind of extraordinary serious rebellion maneuvers. Logic should prevail over rhetoric. Extraordinary threats merit extraordinary counter-measures. By this logic, turtle paced routine judicial process is too ineffective to conclude serious crimes like terrorism and planned mutiny. It is an undeniable fact that multiple weaknesses and handicaps of LEAs in countering the menace of terrorism have overburdened the armed forces with additional tasks across the country. This well-intended arrangement has all sorts of legitimacy leaving no room for speculative doubts about exceptional security measures. Advocacy for the normal constitutional model of a fair trial remains valid in principle but arguments isolated from ground realities usually distort the opinions. It is precisely happening in Pakistan on the issue of military courts. Before imposing a blanket ban on the trial of civilians in military courts, one should comprehend the origin of this practice. Brainstorming in silos about fair trial procedures and the rights of an accused will be an unfair approach towards the precarious security dynamics of Pakistan. The reasons behind the establishment of military courts are very much relevant, as evident from the recent conditional approval of the apex court to conclude the trials of 89 civilians accused of the 9 May riots. The extraordinary challenge of foreign-sponsored terrorism, weaker rather dysfunctional policing, unreliable prosecution system, meagre forensic facilities and traditionally slow-paced judicial procedures are the real reasons behind the reliance of the state on the institution of armed forces. State’s unavoidable desperation for resolute counter-terrorism operations, rapid prosecution and unhindered swift sentencing of terrorists eventually merit the lead role of armed forces in the restoration of internal stability. Understandably, military courts are an essential part of the overall security scheme of the state. Armed forces, being a national asset, are delivering the best to secure the state.

Mischievous activism against military courts laced with equally toxic support from familiar foreign players has added more twists.

The lead role of armed forces in counter-terrorism drive including trials of terrorists in military courts may not be an ideal arrangement for a few advocates of the Utopian state but their criticism appears grossly misplaced once judged in the context of prevailing gaps in prosecution and judicial system. Hue and cry from Western quarters revolving around human rights seems hollow once compared with their merciless silence on the Gaza tragedy. Trials of civilians in military courts under extraordinary security compulsions to seek swift justice is not an alien concept. Many European, South Asian, Middle Eastern and African countries have subscribed to the idea including USA, Turkey, Russia, India, KSA, Iran and Israel; as extensively reported in national and international media. How critics can ignore the special tribunals formed to swiftly conclude the trials of accused involved in Capitol Hill riots in the USA.

Trials of civilians in military courts are fully in line with the constitution and international conventions. The process guarantees a fair trial, the right of appeal, the hiring of defending lawyer and subsequent judicial review of the accused. The practice of trials in a military court was validated by a full court of SC as well with no objection on any of the sub-clauses of Sections 2 and 59 of PAA in 2015. Obviously, any arrested terrorist cum rioter would feel relieved for being called out political worker and prosecuted under a nearly dysfunctional judicial system. Ironically, system gaps would offer guaranteed impunity to all hardcore terrorists and anarchic rioters. Mischievous activism against military courts laced with equally toxic support from familiar foreign players has added more twists to this issue. How state or for that matter prosecution or judiciary can differently tackle the attack on military installations by banning TTP or any rioter cunningly masked as a political protester?

The writer is a student.