Can military officers deliver death sentences? Pakistan's top court questions

During the intra-court appeal hearing against the trial of civilians in military courts on Friday, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail raised concerns about the competence of military officers to pass severe sentences, including the death penalty.

"Even after 34 years in the legal profession, I do not consider myself fully experienced. How can a military officer, without judicial expertise, deliver a death sentence?" said Justice Mandokhail at the hearing scheduled in the Supreme Court in Pakistan's capital Islamabad.

The case, heard by a seven-member constitutional bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, examines the legality of trying civilians under the Pakistan Army Act.

This issue arose after the May 9 riots, sparked by the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, where attacks on military installations and state property were reported.

Defense Ministry counsel Khawaja Haris defended the practice, stating that the Army Act is a special law with a distinct procedure for evidence collection and trials. He assured the court that the trial process would be explained further in his arguments.

Justice Musarrat Hilali raised procedural concerns, questioning how decisions in military courts are drafted.

"To my knowledge, cases are heard by one officer, but the decision is made by the commanding officer, who may not have heard the case," she said.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that internationally, military courts are usually presided over by officers with trial experience.

Haris affirmed that officers in Pakistan's military courts are also experienced in conducting trials.

Revisiting 1999 hijacking case

Justice Hilali also revisited the 1999 hijacking case involving former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf.

She recalled how Musharraf's aircraft, carrying nearly 200 passengers, was denied landing in Karachi, sparking a hijacking case against Sharif and leading to martial law.

"This single incident resulted in martial law, yet the hijacking case was not tried in a military court," she said. Haris clarified that hijacking is not listed as an offense under the Army Act, so the trial was conducted in a civilian court.

Regarding the May 9 cases, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah Zahid informed the court that 35 first information reports (FIRs) had been registered, involving 5,000 accused individuals, with only 105 subjected to military trials based on proven involvement.

Justice Hilali questioned how military courts could proceed when the FIRs lacked references to the Official Secrets Act.

Haris explained that clauses could be added during investigations, but Justice Mazhar emphasized that such additions must follow established legal procedures.