Islamabad Web Desk: The Supreme Court of Pakistan, during a hearing on intra-court appeals against military trials of civilians, raised critical questions regarding the May 9 security breach and the role of military officers in the events. Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi labeled the breach as a “security failure,” questioning whether any military officer was held accountable for the incident.
The hearing, presided over by a seven-member constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, scrutinized the military’s handling of the situation. Advocate Khawaja Haris, representing the Ministry of Defence, began his arguments, asserting that military trials for civilians have legal precedents dating back to 1967.
Justice Musarrat Hilali posed a probing question about the jurisdiction of cases involving disputes between soldiers and civilians in cantonment areas. Haris clarified that such conflicts fall under separate legal frameworks and emphasized the broader scope of military trials.
Addressing the May 9 protests, Justice Rizvi remarked, “How did people enter the Corps Commander’s House? This is undoubtedly a security breach. Has any military officer been tried for their involvement?” Haris responded, explaining that while protesters were charged with damaging property, no military officer faced allegations or charges in connection with the incident.
Justice Rizvi further questioned whether resistance was shown during the vandalism of military installations, to which Haris replied, “The aim was to prevent loss of life, and complete restraint was exercised.”
Justice Musarrat Hilali raised concerns about civilians unknowingly participating in the protests. Haris reassured the court that individuals unaware of their actions were not subjected to military trials.
The bench also examined the scope of the Official Secrets Act and its application in military courts. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar highlighted that crimes falling under this act are clearly defined, ensuring transparency in jurisdiction.
The court adjourned the hearing, signaling further deliberation on the matter. The next session is scheduled for tomorrow.
