• Insists convictions of PTI activists based on legislation, in line with Supreme Court ruling
• Calls for ‘constructive, productive dialogue’ on democracy, human rights, rule of law
• Foreign Office criticised for selectively referencing court rulings

ISLAMABAD: In response to international criticism over the convictions of 25 civilians by the army’s Field General Court Martial (FGCM), the Foreign Office (FO) on Tuesday defended the sentencing, stressing that it is based on parliamentary legislation and in line with a Supreme Court ruling.

“The verdicts have been made under a law enacted by the Parliament of Pakistan and in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” FO spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch said, addressing concerns raised by the European Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, which described the trials as inconsistent with democratic norms and human rights standards.

The FO’s defence, however, appears unlikely to quell the growing controversy surrounding the scope of the law, recent Supreme Court rulings and Pakistan’s adherence to international human rights obligations.

The military announced on Saturday that 25 members of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) had been sentenced to prison terms ranging from two to 10 years for their involvement in the May 9, 2023, attacks on military installations and monuments honouring fallen soldiers. These sentences, handed down by military tribunals, marked the first batch of convictions under FGCM proceedings, with at least 60 other individuals awaiting completion of trials.

The European Union, a key trading partner, condemned the military court’s verdicts, citing violations of Pakistan’s commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The EU’s statement underscored that “every person is entitled to a fair and public trial in a court that is independent, impartial, and competent”.

It also criticised the lack of transparency and adequate legal representation in military court proceedings, reminding Islamabad of its obligations under Article 14 of the ICCPR to ensure public judgements in criminal cases.

The EU’s criticism carries significant weight, given Pakistan’s reliance on the GSP+ scheme, which provides preferential access to EU markets. The scheme’s renewal hinges on compliance with international human rights conventions, including the ICCPR.

The United States echoed similar concerns, with the State Department issuing a strong statement: “These military courts lack judicial independence, transparency, and due process guarantees.”

Washington urged Pak­is­tani authorities to uphold the right to a fair trial as enshrined in the country’s Constitution. The United Kingdom also stressed the importance of civilian trials, asserting that military tribunals undermine principles of judicial independence and fairness.

The FO spokesperson defended Pakistan’s legal framework, asserting that it aligns with international human rights law.

“Pakistan’s legal system is consistent with international human rights law, including provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It has remedies of judicial review by the superior courts and guarantees promotion and protection aid.

She emphasised Pakistan’s commitment to engaging with international partners to uphold human rights, adding: “We remain fully committed to implementing our obligations under the GSP+ scheme and core international human rights conventions.”

Rejecting the mounting international pressure on the government because of the issue, Ms Baloch also called for “constructive and productive dialogue” on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The trials were conducted under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, specifically Section 2(1d), which allows military trials for individuals accused of sedition or offences under the Official Secrets Act of 1932, according to lawyer Omar Farouk Adam.

However, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in October 2023 struck down this provision permitting military trials of civilians. The 4-1 majority decision, authored by Justices Munib Akhtar and Ayesha A. Malik, declared such trials as unconstitutional. Dissenting Chief Justice Yahya Afridi agreed that civilians could not be tried for the May 9 incidents, but he stopped short of invalidating the law entirely.

Subsequent legal developments further complicated the issue. The federal government’s appeal led to a partial suspension of the Supreme Court’s judgement. In December 2023, an appellate bench conditionally allowed military courts to pronounce verdicts, provided no final judgements were issued.

This restriction was relaxed in March 2024, enabling military courts to conclude trials. The matter is now before a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, whose head, Justice Aminuddin Khan, conditionally permitted the pronouncement of verdicts earlier this month. However, the constitutionality of these trials remains undecided.

Legal expert Asad Rahim Khan, part of the petitioners’ legal team in the landmark case Jawwad S. Khawaja v. Federation, criticised the FO for selectively referencing court rulings.

“The FO omitted the most recent and definitive verdict on this matter. The Army Act’s provision for civilian trials was struck down, and while that judgement has been conditionally suspended, it stands as a critical legal precedent,” he said.

Mr Khan further noted that “the SC verdict, while suspended in appeal with almost no reasoning, has not yet been overruled. It would behove the Foreign Office to present the full picture.”

Published in Dawn, December 25th, 2024