Recent remarks by a minister and the military have sparked speculation about the possibility of Imran Khan facing a military trial. Is this legal, and what could it signify?
Islamabad, Pakistan – In recent days, both the Pakistani military and the civilian government have signaled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has been in prison since August of last year, may now face trial in the country’s secretive military courts.
“There is sufficient evidence against the former prime minister, suggesting his trial could take place in a military court,” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif stated in a recent interview with a private news channel. However, he did not provide further details on the evidence against Khan.
Islamabad, Pakistan – Recent statements from both the Pakistani military and the civilian government have fueled speculation that former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who has been imprisoned since August last year, might be tried in the country’s secretive military courts.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif mentioned last week in an interview with a private news channel that there is now ample evidence against Khan that could lead to a military trial, though he did not specify the nature of this evidence.
Asif’s comments followed a news conference by General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the head of the military’s press wing, who suggested that civilians conspiring with military personnel for personal or political gain could face legal action. Chaudhry outlined the conditions under which a civilian might be tried under military law but did not directly address Khan’s situation.
“Under military law, any individual who exploits military personnel for personal or political gain, provided there is evidence, will face legal consequences,” Chaudhry stated on September 5.
Speculation about Khan’s potential military trial relates to his alleged involvement in the unrest of May 9 last year. Following his arrest in a corruption case, supporters of Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party protested, which escalated to attacks on state buildings and military installations, leading to thousands of arrests, though only about 100 faced military trials.
In response to concerns that Khan might be transferred to a military court, his legal team filed a petition on September 3, seeking to block such a move preemptively.
The legal debate centers around whether Khan can be tried under the Pakistan Army Act, which allows for civilian prosecution in military courts under exceptional circumstances. Chaudhry’s remarks, while not specifically about Khan, implied that civilians encouraging military personnel to act against the state could be tried in a military court.
The military has not yet accused Khan of colluding with army officers regarding the May 9 violence. However, the Pakistani army has recently initiated court martial proceedings against former spy chief Faiz Hameed and three associates, which has led to speculation about potential connections to any future actions against Khan.
Khan, who has been convicted three times since his 2023 arrest, remains in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail for a case involving the state gift depository. All his previous convictions have either been overturned or suspended. He also faces charges related to the May 9 events.
The government argues that the constitution permits civilians to be tried in military courts. During Khan’s tenure from 2018 to 2022, several civilians were tried under military law. However, Khan’s PTI party challenged the legality of military trials for civilians following the May 9 events, leading to a Supreme Court petition.
Lawyer Rida Hosain explained that in October 2023, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the court martial of civilians was unconstitutional. This ruling was suspended in December 2023 following a government appeal.
“This ruling is currently suspended, so civilians can still be tried in military courts,” Hosain told Al Jazeera.
Islamabad-based lawyer Salaar Khan noted that while it’s unclear if a case against Khan will proceed in military court, the law does allow the military to request a civilian’s transfer under certain circumstances. However, Hosain clarified that this is not automatic. A civilian must first be charged with a relevant offense in a civilian court, and a judge must provide a reasoned opinion before a civilian can be transferred to military authorities.
Civilians tried in military courts, known as field general court martial (FGCM), undergo proceedings under the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the military’s legal directorate. The court’s president and prosecution counsel are both serving military officers. Military trials are characterized by their secrecy, with limited transparency and public access. Defendants have the right to legal representation, and if they cannot afford a lawyer, they can request a military officer to represent them. If convicted, they have the right to appeal within 40 days to a military court of appeals, and if still unsatisfied, they can take their case to higher civilian courts.
In Pakistan’s 77-year history, no prime minister has ever faced a military trial. Although there have been instances of civilians being tried in military courts, a former prime minister has never been subjected to such a trial.
Lawyer Inam-ul-Rahiem, a former military official, is opposed to the trial of civilians in military courts but does not believe Khan’s case will progress to that level. “I don’t think the government will send Khan’s case to military court. He’s a political leader, and that could potentially damage the military’s reputation,” Rahiem said.
He also emphasized that unless there is undeniable evidence linking Khan to what the government considers seditious activities, his ongoing trials in civilian courts are more appropriate. “The government would need to present concrete proof of Khan’s involvement in inciting military personnel for personal gain before a military trial could proceed,” he added.
Hosain also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s October 2023 ruling emphasized that a civilian court must issue a reasoned order before transferring a civilian to military custody. Although this ruling is currently suspended, it reflects what Hosain believes should be the law. “From start to finish, the military justice system is incompatible with fundamental rights,” she concluded.
