May 19, 2025
By Xari Jalil
LAHORE
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, has issued a formal communication to the Government of Pakistan expressing serious concern over the trial and conviction of more than 100 civilians by military courts. The trials are connected to protests that erupted on 9 and 10 May 2023 following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The communication, issued under Human Rights Council resolution 53/12 details multiple allegations that these civilians were prosecuted under laws intended for military personnel, including the Official Secrets Act and the Pakistan Army Act.
Military trials and charges
According to information received by the UN mandate holder, Pakistani military and government authorities in May 2023 announced that civilians allegedly involved in attacks on military installations during the May demonstrations would be tried in military courts. While 2,892 individuals were being prosecuted through the regular criminal justice system, over 100 civilians were selected for military trials.
In June 2023, administrative judges of anti-terrorism courts transferred custody of these individuals to military authorities. The transfer was based largely on initial investigations suggesting these individuals had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act, including sections 3 (spying), 6 (unauthorized use of uniforms and falsification), 7 (interfering with police or armed forces), and 9 (attempts and abetment). These charges allowed for prosecution under section 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, which makes civilians liable to military trial for specified offences.
Military authorities argued that the offences involved attacks on military personnel and installations, falling under section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act. Section 2(d) of the Act extends jurisdiction to civilians accused of seducing military personnel from duty or committing offences related to defence works or military affairs under the Official Secrets Act.
Supreme Court proceedings
Several individuals petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan to declare these trials unconstitutional. On 23 October 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1952 Army Act provisions enabling such trials were ‘ultra vires’ the Constitution. The Court held that ordinary criminal courts had proper jurisdiction.
However, the Government filed an intra-court appeal. On 13 December 2023, a six-member bench of the Supreme Court suspended the earlier ruling and conditioned that military courts could not issue final judgments against the accused.
Subsequently, in March 2024, the Supreme Court permitted military courts to issue reserved verdicts, which allowed for remissions of sentences and releases. In April 2024, 20 individuals sentenced to one-year imprisonment were released.
Later, on 13 December 2024, a seven-member constitutional bench allowed military courts to announce conditional verdicts for the remaining 85 individuals, subject to a final ruling on the appeals.
Secretive proceedings and lack of transparency
Following these developments, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces, publicly announced the convictions through press releases, but provided no detailed information on charges, evidence, or the legal reasoning for jurisdiction.
On 21 December 2024, ISPR confirmed that 25 people had been sentenced to two to ten years in prison, calling the convictions “an important milestone in dispensation of justice to the nation,” and claimed due process was followed.
On 26 December 2024, ISPR announced the conviction and sentencing of the remaining 60 civilians, repeating similar language about legal safeguards and fairness.
On 2 January 2025, ISPR issued another statement announcing that 17 convicted individuals had been granted “mercy” and had their remaining sentences remitted “on humanitarian grounds.” It stated the remission demonstrated the “strength of the due process and fairness” of the judicial process.
However, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that these press releases failed to provide substantive information about the underlying criminal conduct, legal justification for military jurisdiction, or transparency of the proceedings. None of the trials were held publicly.
Ongoing appeal and legal concerns
To date, more than one year since the Government’s appeal, the Supreme Court has not issued a final judgment. The Special Rapporteur expressed grave concern about the continued use of military courts for civilian trials, particularly given the Supreme Court’s earlier declaration that such provisions in the Army Act had no constitutional authority.
The Rapporteur highlighted that under section 133 of the Pakistan Army Act, decisions of military courts cannot be appealed in civilian courts, leaving convicted civilians without legal recourse.
Satterthwaite further recalled Pakistan’s obligations under **Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)**, which the country ratified on 23 June 2010. Article 14 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. The Special Rapporteur underscored that the requirement for public hearings was not upheld, and the Pakistan Army Act does not ensure public trials.
International human rights law
The Rapporteur noted that guarantees under Article 14 apply to all courts, including military tribunals. She emphasized that military courts trying civilians often fail to provide equitable, impartial, and independent justice.
The communication also recalled the Human Rights Committee’s December 2024 concluding observations, which urged Pakistan to:
- Abrogate military jurisdiction over civilians,
- Align military proceedings with international fair trial standards,
- And release on bail all civilians detained under military jurisdiction.
Satterthwaite also invoked ‘Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary’ and the UN principles on the administration of justice through military tribunals, both of which strongly discourage military trials of civilians.
She reiterated that such trials must be exceptional and justified only when civilian courts are demonstrably incapable of conducting fair trials. Furthermore, she noted that the fairness of proceedings requires public access, absence of pressure or intimidation, and access to remedies—all lacking in the present case.
Formal request for information
In her letter, the Special Rapporteur requested that the Pakistani Government provide:
1. Additional information or comments on the allegations,
2. Details on measures taken to ensure fair trial standards in military courts,
3. Information on steps to align the Pakistan Army Act with international human rights obligations, and
4. Updates on the status of the Government’s intra-court appeal.