IT is unfortunate that some internal and external circles have started a malicious campaign following pronouncement of judgments by military courts awarding sentences to 25 accused involved in May 09 events. They propagate that the trial of civilians in the military courts violates the constitutional provisions and international laws. The criticism of the trials by the PTI is understandable but others at home and abroad seem to be influenced by the negative propaganda of the vested interests on the issue of trial of the civilians by the military courts, a process which is motivated by the resolve of the State to establish its writ and uphold rule of law.
The critics ignore the reality that the cases are not fabricated but based on firm and undeniable evidence of their involvement in acts of violence and sabotage that are well-documented and largely supported by media versions of what happened on May 09. The tendency to shield criminals labelling them as simple political workers or ordinary souls is highly regrettable as this encourages continuation of negative behaviour by such elements. No one is opposing peaceful protests within the bounds of the law and the Constitution but those attacking public and private properties, symbols of state, metro buses and stations, personnel of law enforcing agencies, premises of intelligence agencies and even GHQ and residences of the corps commanders cannot claim to have peaceful intentions. These are cognizable offences and those involved need to be made accountable for their actions. Those involved in May 09 incidents are being tried by the military courts mainly because they clearly militate against the national institution and the ordinary system miserably failed to bring them to books. The failure of the system was highlighted by the fact that those involved in attacks on state institutions like the Parliament House, PM Office and Pakistan Television went scot free despite the availability of tons of material against them and proving their conduct as lawbreakers. The propaganda against the process of accountability of those involved in May 09 riots is reminiscent of the undue criticism of the state institutions in the garb of human rights of core criminals and terrorists.
The European Union and the UK have expressed concern over trial of civilians by military courts claiming the process lacks transparency, independent scrutiny and undermines the right to a fair trial. They have referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which envisages every person is entitled to a fair and public trial in a court that is independent, impartial and competent, and has the right to adequate and effective legal representation. In fact, all these concerns are taken care of during military trials where accused are entitled to get a defence counsel without whom the case cannot begin. It is, therefore, a public trial in a different environment than we usually witness in ordinary courts. It is rightly being pointed out that when national security is undermined, such as through coordinated violence targeting sensitive installations, it is hardly unreasonable to employ specialized tribunals with their own checks and balances. There was also no element of haste in the trial of the cases or delivery of verdicts as these have been given after one year. It is also a reality that the verdicts pronounced by the military courts are not final and the convicts are entitled to the right of multiple appeals. We have adequate examples before us when sentences awarded by the military courts were reviewed and overturned by civilian courts as was done by Peshawar High Court in cases of appeal by those tried for their involvement in terrorist activities. Anyhow, a case about jurisdiction of military courts is pending with the Supreme Court, which will, hopefully, settle the issue once for all.
