The United Kingdom has expressed significant concern over the recent sentencing of 25 civilians involved in the May 9 riots in Pakistan by military courts, calling into question the transparency and fairness of such trials. A spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) issued a strongly-worded statement, urging Pakistan’s federal government to adhere to its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The statement emphasized that military courts, by their very nature, lack the independence and impartiality required for fair trials. “While the UK respects Pakistan’s sovereignty over its legal processes, trying civilians in military courts undermines the right to a fair trial,” the spokesperson said.
The UK’s critique comes in the wake of growing international backlash against Pakistan’s military justice system, which has been increasingly used to try civilians accused of involvement in protests and attacks on state installations.
Military Trials Spark International Outrage
The May 9, 2023, events—triggered by the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan—unleashed violent protests across Pakistan. Demonstrators attacked military installations, including the General Headquarters (GHQ), prompting a swift and heavy-handed response from authorities. Pakistan’s military initiated trials against more than 100 civilians in military courts, citing the gravity of the offenses committed.
Among these cases, 25 individuals were recently sentenced to prison terms ranging from two to ten years by Field General Court Martial (FGCM). The trials were conducted under strict secrecy, with minimal access to independent legal counsel or public scrutiny.
Read More: EU Slams Pakistan Military Courts for Violating International Law in Civilian Trials
The UK’s criticism aligns with similar concerns raised by other international entities, including the European Union (EU), which has pointed to Pakistan’s obligations under Article 14 of the ICCPR. The article guarantees all individuals the right to a fair and public trial by an independent, impartial, and competent tribunal.
UK Statement Highlights Human Rights Obligations
The FCDO spokesperson underscored the importance of Pakistan adhering to its international human rights commitments. As a signatory to the ICCPR, Pakistan is bound to uphold the principles of due process, transparency, and accountability in its legal proceedings. The UK’s statement also noted that judgments in criminal cases must be made public to ensure accountability, a requirement that military courts have largely failed to meet.
The criticism carries additional weight given Pakistan’s reliance on international partnerships and agreements like the European Union’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+). The preferential trade arrangement requires beneficiary countries to comply with 27 core international conventions, including the ICCPR.
Balancing Sovereignty and Accountability
While the UK’s statement reaffirmed respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, it highlighted the global community’s growing unease with the military’s expanding role in civilian legal matters. Observers argue that military courts bypass civilian judicial mechanisms, eroding public trust in the legal system and fostering authoritarianism.
The UK’s measured critique seeks to strike a balance between respecting Pakistan’s internal governance and holding it accountable to international norms. However, Pakistan’s leadership has so far dismissed these concerns, framing military trials as a necessary response to acts of violence targeting the state’s integrity.
PTI and Opposition Call for Judicial Probe
The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, whose members and supporters constitute a significant portion of those tried in military courts, has repeatedly condemned the trials. PTI leaders maintain that the party had no role in orchestrating the May 9 attacks and have called for an independent judicial probe to uncover the truth behind the events.
The UK’s statement amplifies the opposition’s demands for transparency and judicial oversight. Human rights activists have also joined the call, warning that the military’s involvement in civilian justice represents a dangerous precedent that undermines democratic governance in Pakistan.
Global Scrutiny of Pakistan’s Justice System
The UK’s criticism adds to the mounting international scrutiny of Pakistan’s handling of the May 9 events. The EU’s recent statement highlighting violations of ICCPR obligations and concerns over Pakistan’s GSP+ status further underscores the stakes involved.
As Pakistan faces increasing isolation on the global stage, the government’s insistence on using military courts to try civilians has sparked a debate on the balance between state security and human rights. The UK’s intervention is a reminder that the world is watching—and that Pakistan’s actions have implications far beyond its borders.
The UK’s condemnation of Pakistan’s military court trials for civilians underscores a critical challenge for the country’s judiciary and governance. As international voices grow louder, Pakistan must grapple with the need to uphold its human rights commitments while addressing internal security challenges. Failure to do so risks further alienating global allies and eroding the credibility of its justice system.