The principle of justice thrives on transparency, fairness, and due process—values enshrined in civilian court systems worldwide. In stark contrast, military courts, traditionally designed to maintain discipline within the armed forces, operate under a distinct set of rules and procedures. When military courts extend their jurisdiction to try civilians, as has occurred in Pakistan, it not only undermines these principles but also raises profound questions about human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
A Crisis in Pakistan’s Judiciary and Governance
In April 2022, Pakistan’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Imran Khan, was ousted in a coup orchestrated by the military establishment. This triggered nationwide protests, as millions took to the streets to denounce an unlawful and unconstitutional action. The dissent was met with brutal suppression. The events reached a crescendo on May 9, 2023, when a so-called false flag operation led to the mass arrest of over 10,000 members and leaders of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Despite facing extensive torture, many of these individuals remain in custody, including Khan himself, who has been subjected to inhumane treatment in violation of Pakistan’s own laws.
The situation escalated further when the military announced its intention to try 105 arrested PTI protesters in military courts. This decision has sparked outrage both domestically and internationally, with organizations such as Amnesty International, as well as the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union, condemning these actions.
The Weaponization of Military Courts
Military courts in Pakistan have increasingly become tools for suppressing dissent and consolidating power. Following the rigged elections in February 2024, which deprived PTI of its legitimate mandate despite securing the support of 75% of voters, the military’s grip tightened. Constitutional violations, including the forced passage of the 26th amendment to curb the powers of the Supreme Court, have exacerbated the erosion of democratic norms. Peaceful PTI protesters exercising their constitutional rights were targeted with advanced weaponry in Islamabad on November 26, resulting in hundreds of deaths, injuries, and disappearances.
On December 21, 2024, military courts sentenced 25 individuals to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for their alleged involvement in the May 9 events. On Dec 26th, the remaining PTI workers were also sentenced by the military court, making the total 105. Such verdicts, issued without due process, have further tarnished Pakistan’s judicial reputation.
Military Courts: A Global Perspective
Autocratic regimes have often been associated with the use of military courts to try civilians, typically as a means of suppressing dissent, quashing opposition, or circumventing civilian legal systems. Here are a few examples:
Egypt: After the military coup that ousted President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, the Egyptian military expanded the jurisdiction of military courts to try civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, between 2014 and 2018, over 15,000 civilians, including children, were referred to military prosecution in Egypt.
Syria: Under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, military field courts have been used to try civilians, particularly in the context of the ongoing civil war. These courts have been criticized for conducting trials that often last only a few minutes, with no lawyers present.
Thailand: Following the military coup in 2014, the junta expanded the use of military courts to try civilians for lese majeste (insulting the monarchy) and other national security crimes. The practice was ended in 2016, but during that time, hundreds of civilians were tried in military courts.
Zimbabwe: In the past, Zimbabwe has used military courts to try civilians, particularly during times of unrest or perceived threat to the state.
Myanmar: Since the military coup in February 2021, there have been reports of civilians, including protestors and political dissenters, being tried in military courts. These trials have been widely condemned by international observers for their lack of due process and transparency.
Algeria: Over the years, Algeria has used military courts to try civilians, particularly during its civil war in the 1990s. This practice has been criticized by human rights groups due to concerns about fair trials and the use of torture.
Bahrain: Bahrain has used military courts to try civilians, particularly following the Arab Spring protests in 2011. These courts, known as National Safety Courts, have been criticized by international observers for their harsh sentences, lack of due process, and allegations of torture.
Libya: Under Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, Libya tried civilians in military courts, particularly during periods of political unrest. These courts were criticized for their lack of independence and failure to uphold basic standards of due process.
In all these cases, military courts served as tools of oppression, bypassing civilian legal safeguards and undermining the rule of law.
International Law and Human Rights
International law provides several protections and standards for fair trials, many of which may be at risk if civilians are tried in military courts. Here are some relevant international rules and laws that could potentially be violated:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Articles 10 and 11 set out basic principles for a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and the right to legal defense. If these are not upheld in military courts, it could be a violation of the UDHR.
Read More: US Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The ICCPR also sets standards for fair trials. Article 14 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.
Geneva Conventions: While the Geneva Conventions allow for military courts in certain circumstances, such as during armed conflict, they also establish strict standards for such courts. If military courts do not adhere to these standards, it could constitute a violation.
Regional Human Rights Treaties: Various regional treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights, provide protections for fair trials. Violations of these protections could potentially occur if civilians are tried in military courts.
United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary: These principles state that everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts.
Erosion of Democracy and Rule of Law
The trial of civilians in military courts has far-reaching consequences for Pakistan’s democratic fabric:
- Undermining Civil Liberties: Military trials lack transparency and procedural fairness, eroding trust in the judicial system.
- Concentration of Power: By expanding military influence into civilian legal matters, the separation of powers essential to democracy is severely compromised.
- Intimidation of Opposition: Political dissent is stifled, creating an atmosphere of fear and discouraging civic participation.
- Loss of International Credibility: Such actions violate international legal standards, tarnishing Pakistan’s global reputation and risking diplomatic isolation.
The Devastating Impact on Pakistan’s Future
The continued use of military courts to try civilians has dire implications for Pakistan’s future on multiple fronts. These trials not only exacerbate internal instability but also deepen Pakistan’s isolation in the international community. Global condemnation of these practices could result in reduced diplomatic engagement and the potential withdrawal of critical foreign aid and investments, further weakening an already fragile economy.
Economically, the erosion of trust in Pakistan’s judicial system undermines investor confidence. A country perceived as failing to uphold the rule of law and democratic principles will struggle to attract and retain international business, leading to increased unemployment and economic stagnation. Furthermore, sanctions or restrictions from global powers and international organizations could devastate key industries, compounding economic hardships for millions of Pakistanis.
Domestically, the erosion of judicial institutions threatens the very foundation of governance. By undermining civilian courts and concentrating judicial authority within the military, Pakistan risks creating a parallel justice system that perpetuates inequality and denies citizens their constitutional rights. This destabilization of legal norms fuels societal discontent, exacerbates divisions, and paves the way for further unrest.
Read More: British Pakistanis Call on UK Govt to Halt Transnational Repression by Pakistani State Agencies
At the heart of any nation’s growth and prosperity lies social justice. It is the key distinction between developed and underdeveloped nations. Social justice fosters harmony, integrity, and a collective sense of purpose within a nation. It is the cornerstone of nation-building, essential for fostering trust between the government and its people. Without social justice, inequality and disenfranchisement grow, sowing seeds of conflict and division. For Pakistan, ensuring fair trials and upholding the rule of law is not just a legal obligation but a necessity for its survival as a cohesive and thriving state.
The Path Forward
If Pakistan is to restore its democratic integrity and uphold the rule of law, it must take decisive steps to reverse these troubling trends. Civilian courts must reclaim their jurisdiction, ensuring that all citizens are afforded their constitutional rights. The judiciary must be strengthened to operate independently of military influence, and those responsible for abuses must be held accountable. Finally, Pakistan’s civil society, along with international allies, must continue to advocate for justice and democracy.
The trial of civilians in military courts is a symptom of a deeper malaise—the unchecked power of the military establishment. Addressing this issue is not merely a matter of legal reform but a test of Pakistan’s commitment to the principles of justice, democracy, and human rights. Without meaningful change, the nation risks descending further into authoritarianism, with devastating consequences for its people and its future.
The author is a Seattle based entrepreneur, technologist and a social activist.