18 February, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
While arguing a case in the Supreme Court, Salman Akram Raja said that civilians could not be court-martialed and be stripped of their fundamental rights.
An intra-court appeal challenging civilian trials in military courts was heard at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 18. The seven-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, is presiding over the case. Lawyer Salman Akram Raja presented detailed arguments during the hearing.
Raja pointed out that while court-martial originated in the 19th century, Pakistan’s Constitution, through the 18th Amendment, now guarantees the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.
He argued that judicial independence from executive influence is essential for justice. International law also mandates open and transparent trials.
Military Trials Across the World
Salman Akram Raja emphasised that most countries allowed appeals against military tribunal decisions. Rulings by the European Court of Human Rights have compelled several nations to reform their court-martial systems.
When Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked, “What would be the consequences if international principles are not followed?”
To this, Salman Akram Raja responded, “It would mean that the trial was not fair and transparent.”
He said that the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has already expressed concerns over the court-martial of civilians in Pakistan, asserting that the country’s military courts are not independent. The UN, in its report, has urged the Pakistani government to take steps to grant bail to individuals in military custody.
He added that the European Commission also deemed the court-martial of civilians arrested in connection with the May 9 incidents unnecessary. He highlighted that Pakistan’s GSP+ status with the European Union is conditional on compliance with international human rights standards.
‘Findlay’s hearing’
In an interesting exchange between Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Salman Akram Raja, Raja referred to the court-martial of a British soldier named Findlay in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his trial was unfair.
At this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, referring to the events of May 9, remarked, “Findlay’s weapon had ended up breaking a television; likewise a television was broken during the May 9 incident as well.”
To this, Raja said that he had met the person who had broken the television on May 9, and that the individual was deeply regretful.
At this, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan remarked, “Let’s not discuss individual cases.”
At this point, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, smiling, commented, “Salman Akram Raja has met the Pakistani Findlay,” which elicited laughter in the courtroom.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked, “You had mentioned that your client used to play first-class cricket, but on May 9, he didn’t go to play cricket, did he?”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired, “Is there any law under which Kulbhushan Jadhav was given the right to appeal before the court?” To this, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman replied that there was and that he would present it on record.
To this Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked, “How many more Kulbhushans do we have?”
Pakistan only country where citizens are court-martialed
Meanwhile Salman Akram Raja said, “Uganda was the only country where civilians were subjected to military trials. However now Pakistan is the only country left in the world that court-martials its civilians. The purpose of military justice should not be to intimidate civilians,” he added.
Referring to a judicial precedent from Uganda, Raja mentioned that he had prepared a note on Khawaja Haris’ arguments. Justice Jamal Mandokhail humorously remarked, “Convince the others first, then ask for time.”
Uganda’s experience with military courts has been marked by controversy and concerns about human rights. Uganda’s military justice system has evolved through various stages, from the colonial era to the post-independence period and the regimes of leaders like Idi Amin and Yoweri Museveni.Throughout this history, there have been concerns about the independence and impartiality of military courts, particularly when dealing with civilians.
One of the key issues regarding military courts in Uganda included its jurisdiction over civilians. This has been a major point of contention as human rights organizations and legal experts have argued that this violates international law and the right to a fair trial.lacking independence from the executive branch and the military hierarchy. This raises concerns about bias and the ability of these courts to deliver impartial justice.
Apart from this there have also been reports in Uganda of due process violations in military courts, including limited access to legal representation, use of coerced confessions, and lack of transparency, while it has been common for military courts to have been used to target political opponents and government critics, raising concerns about the misuse of the system for political purposes.
But recent developments in 2025 have resulted in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Uganda which has ruled that military courts lack jurisdiction to try civilians. This was a significant step towards upholding the right to a fair trial and limiting the scope of military courts.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, there have been reports of the government continuing to use military courts to try civilians in certain cases, particularly those related to national security.uman rights organizations continue to monitor the situation and advocate for full compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and international human rights standards.
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan remarked, “We have heard Salman Akram Raja for longer than he had initially anticipated.”
Lawyer Uzair Bhandari assured the court that he would not present lengthy arguments and would largely rely on the points already made by Salman Akram Raja. The court then adjourned the hearing until the next day.