By Aqeel Yousafzai
Once again, remarks from the superior judiciary regarding the trial of civilians in military courts have sparked confusion among concerned circles. The comments so far indicate that civil authorities and institutions have seemingly failed to convincingly establish the grounds for trying individuals involved in incidents like the May 9 attacks on military installations in military courts.
The constitutional and judicial jurisdiction on such matters is quite clear, and keeping past experiences in view, a constitutional bench was formed to address these issues. However, it is unfortunate that ambiguity persists. This confusion largely stems from some judges’ remarks and questions framed within the narrative of “human rights.” These remarks have been unnecessarily politicized by mainstream media and PTI leaders, who have shifted the focus from being a constitutional matter to a political issue.
The military establishment, showing leniency, had released several PTI offenders based on their clemency appeals. Yet, PTI politicized this gesture for point-scoring, maintaining its confrontational stance. Adding to the controversy, the KP provincial government reportedly recorded and circulated statements from some released workers as part of a propaganda campaign. Instead of condemning or taking responsibility for the May 9 attacks, these individuals appeared to defend the events, contrary to their earlier clemency pleas.
This approach has deepened bitterness and tensions. Further exacerbating the situation are unnecessary statements regarding ongoing negotiations, which have diminished hopes for reconciliation. The situation worsened when PTI shared a photo of Maryam Nawaz and the UAE ruler on social media, using it as a propaganda tool without considering the consequences. The UAE government strongly reacted to this, intensifying the strain.
In this backdrop, the responsibility falls on the superior judiciary to handle legal and constitutional matters within a well-defined framework. The judiciary must refrain from adding a political touch to sensitive constitutional issues to avoid further complicating an already polarized environment.