May 5, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
Intra-court appeals against civilian trials being held in military courts finally reached an end on Monday, May 5, after 62 hearings, however the seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (SC) reserved its verdict after concluding the hearing. The decision is expected to be announced later this week.
The bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, who is the presiding judge of Pakistan’s Constitutional Bench, heard the case, during which Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan also presented detailed arguments.
At the outset of the hearing, renowned analyst Hafeezullah Niazi also appeared at the rostrum, requesting the court to allow him some time at the end. Meanwhile the court proceedings began with the Attorney General’s arguments.
‘May 9 attacks were planned’
During his arguments, Attorney General Mansoor Awan said that the events of May 9 were the result of organized planning. He said that in the past, when a former Prime Minister of Pakistan was executed, people responded with self-immolations and mass arrests, but no one attacked state property. He added that his father, as a political worker, faced legal cases but never imagined attacking state institutions.
He said that on May 9, 2023, between 3 PM and 7 PM, attacks had been carried out on 39 military installations across the country. Out of these 23 were in Lahore, eight in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, seven in Sindh, and one in Balochistan.
He said the Corps Commander’s office in Lahore had been attacked at 5:40 PM, and by 9 PM, the Lahore Corps was non-functional.
He said the Corps Commander’s office in Lahore had been attacked at 5:40 PM, and by 9 PM, the Lahore Corps was non-functional.
Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi echoed Awan’s remarks about public reaction, saying that when Bhutto was hanged, the shock had caused some people to resort to self-immolation. But no one never set public or state property on fire.
Security questioned
Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned the security in Jinnah House when the attack took place. She asked whether the gate security had been breached or whether it was opened from the inside. If it was opened from the inside, she said, it would indicate collusion. Awan said that he would verify this matter and inform the court.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned whether the events of May 9 were committed with criminal intent or were merely protests. He noted that while the intention might have been to protest, things had gone completely out of control — ultimately resulting in the events turning ‘criminal’.
Justice Mandokhail posed tough questions, asking how such major criminal incidents occurred without effective action against anyone. The Attorney General informed the court that the army, on grounds of negligence, compulsorily retired three senior officers without pension or benefits — a lieutenant general, a brigadier, and a lieutenant colonel. Additionally, the performance of 14 officers was found unsatisfactory.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether criminal proceedings had been initiated against these officers, to which the Attorney General replied that criminal charges are filed only if a crime is proven. These were mere departmental lapses. However, Justice Mandokhail reminded him that under the Army Act, criminal punishment can accompany departmental proceedings.
‘No discussion on May 9’
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan objected to the Attorney General’s arguments, saying the court had not allowed discussions on the merits of the May 9 incident, as doing so could affect pending cases. He warned that going into the details would raise questions the Attorney General might not be able to answer.
Meanwhile, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned why the law — particularly the Official Secrets Act — had not been amended, especially when constitutional amendments can be made.
The Attorney General responded that appeals have already been filed against military court verdicts, with 86 convicted individuals having appealed so far, while others would also be given the right to appeal.
The Attorney General urged the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench to provide observations on the right to appeal so that Parliament could legislate accordingly. He cited the example of the extension of the tenure of former Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, to which Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar responded that Parliament had been given six months to legislate for the decision.
‘Past cases all tried in civilian courts’
At the conclusion of the hearing, Hafeezullah Niazi informed the court that during the 2014 sit-in, attacks had been carried out on the Prime Minister House, Parliament, and Radio Station, and that the crowd had turned violent at that time as well. He stated that there had been a clear plan to remove the PM from the Prime Minister House. However, all those cases were tried in regular courts.
During the proceedings, Hafeezullah Niazi also revealed that his son was currently imprisoned in Kot Lakhpat Jail.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court reserved its judgment, with Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan remarking that a short order would be issued later this week.