The trial of civilians in military courts is a contentious issue globally, often debated for its implications on human rights and the intricate balance between civil and military institutions. These courts are established in other countries as well. Exploring the global practices of trying civilians in military courts and examining Pakistan’s framework side by side helps in developing an adequate understanding of this complexity, moreover it allows to tell the reality from propaganda.
In Lebanon, military courts have jurisdiction over civilians for crimes such as espionage and illegal possession of weapons. The courts include both military and civilian judges, and their decisions can be appealed in civilian courts under specific conditions. Bahrain, after the 2011 pro-democracy protests, expanded military court jurisdiction to include civilians accused of terrorism, with a mixed panel and the king holds the power to pardon convicts. Countries like Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia use military courts to try civilians for crimes against national security. In Egypt, military courts have tried thousands of civilians since 2013, especially for attacks against military personnel or facilities. Morocco has used military courts for cases involving threats to state security, such as support for rebel groups.
In Nigeria and Kenya, military courts have been used to try civilians accused of terrorism or instigating violence. From 2017 to 2020, Nigeria tried civilians in military courts for alleged support of Boko Haram. In South-American part; Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil have historically used military courts for civilian trials, particularly during periods of political unrest. For instance, post-coup Argentina (1976-1983) saw many civilians tried in military courts. In Asian parts of the world, like India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Myanmar, military courts have been used for trial of civilians. Myanmar’s 2021 military coup led to thousands of civilians being sentenced in military courts. Bangladesh has also used military courts for cases involving support for terrorist and insurgent groups. Countries such as Turkey, Colombia, and Philippines have also utilized military courts for civilian trials.
Pakistan’s use of military courts to try civilians is grounded in the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) of 1952 and the Official Secrets Act (OSA) of 1923. The legal framework allows military courts to try civilians in specific circumstances, such as when civilians commit acts of terrorism or offenses related to national security. Amendments to the 1973 Constitution and Army Act have reinforced this framework, particularly in response to heightened security threats. The events of May 9, 2023, often remembered as Black Day in military history, involving the vandalism of military properties by political party supporters, led to the decision to try the perpetrators in military courts. This decision was made to ensure swift and efficient justice, given the severe impact on national security.
While military courts in Pakistan are intended to provide justice in cases of terrorism and other offenses, their fairness is often questioned due to issues of transparency, legal representation, and judicial oversight. This has led to significant debate both within Pakistan and internationally about the appropriateness and fairness of using military courts to try civilians. Critics argue that military courts may not provide a fair trial. However, Pakistan’s military justice system includes several safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. These include: the provision of legal representation, the right to appeal military court decisions, and the observance of due process during trials. Military courts in Pakistan follow a legal procedure that perfectly aligns with the constitution. For instance, civilians tried under the Army Act are provided with a defense counsel and have the right to appeal the court’s decision.
In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Field General Court Martial of the Pakistan Army has sentenced 60 individuals involved in the May 9 incident to imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years with hard labor. On December 21, ISPR had announced the sentences of 25 convicts. This brings the total number of those convicted by military courts in this case to 85. According to the statement released on December 26, the list also includes former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s nephew Hassan Niazi, who was sentenced to 10 years. ISPR stated that the trials of the May 9 detainees held in military custody have been completed under the relevant laws, and all convicts retain the right to appeal and other legal rights. Federal Minister for Information, Attaullah Tarar has termed the verdict in the May 9 case as a triumph of justice.
Comparing Pakistan’s framework with international practices reveals similarities and differences. Like many countries, Pakistan employs military courts to address severe threats to national security. However, Pakistan’s robust legal safeguards aim to balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights. There is no doubt that civilian trials have been held in military courts in Pakistan during various periods, including the last PTI government’s tenure, and military courts are operational in over 35 countries. It should be noted that while constitutional and legal systems vary worldwide, adherence to respective laws plays a crucial role in restoring peace. Internationally, the use of military courts varies, with some countries facing criticism for potential human rights violations, while others have systems that uphold legal standards. Pakistan’s framework, with its legal safeguards and commitment to due process, strives to balance these competing interests. As global practices continue to evolve, Pakistan’s approach can benefit from ongoing scrutiny and refinement to ensure justice and human rights are upheld.