PESHAWAR: Twenty-seven members of Pakistan Teheek-i-Insaf, who were convicted by military courts for involvement in the May 9, 2023, violent protests in the province, have challenged their conviction before the military court of appeals under the Pakistan Army Act, their lawyer said here on Friday.

PTPs lawyers wing provincial chief Qazi Mohammad Anwar and Barrister Sarwar Muzaffar Shah have filed separate appeals on their behalf in the Judge AdvocateGeneral Branch, General Headquarters, Rawalpindi.

Barrister Sarwar Muzaffar Shah told Dawn that the appellants also included seven of the convicts who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and released from prisons early this month.

He stated that the cases of the appellants were very strong as their trials and convictions were based on mala fide and their cases didn`t fall in the jurisdiction of the Field General Court Martial.

He informed that the appeals were filed under section 133-B of the Army Act, 1952.

He said the Army Act`s provision declared that any person to whom a court-martial had awarded a sentence of death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment exceeding three months, or dismissal from the service, may, within 40 days from the date of announcement of the sen-tence file an appeal to a court of appeals consisting of the chief of the army staff or one or more officers designated by him.

These appellants from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have been convicted by FGCM (FGCM) in connection with alleged attacks on military installations in Mardan, Bannu, Chakdara (Dir Lower), Timergara (Lower Dir), Bannu and Peshawar.

On Dec 21, the military`s media wing, ISPR, announced sentences for 25 of the accused by Field General Court Martial. On Dec 26, it released details of convictions of 60 other accused across the country.

Of them, seven convicts in the first batch and 20 in the second batch were from KP.

Ten PTI activists were convicted for attacking Bannu Cantonment and six for Punjab Regiment Centre Mardan, five each for attacking Headquarters of Dir ScoutsTimergara and Chakdara Fort and one for attacking the main gate of FC Peshawar Cantonment.

The rigorous imprisonment awarded to them were from two years to 10 years.

Rehmatullah, Adnan Ahmad and Shakirullah got 10 years of imprisonment and Yasir Nawaz, Saeed Alam and Zahid Khan two years of imprisonment each for Mardan attack.

Similarly, convicts in the Bannu cantonment attack case included Mohammad Afaq, Ikramullah, Ameen Shah, Khizar Hayat, Saglain Haider, Izzat Gul, Naik Mohammad, Khalid Nawaz and Rahimullah, who received nine years of imprisonment each, while Samiullah was awarded two years of imprisonment.

The military courts handed down seven years imprisonment to Daud Khan, Gohar Rehman and ZakirHussain each for attacking Chakdara Fort, while Ikramullah and Raees Ahmad got four years of imprisonment each.

Similarly, Sohrab Khan and Asadullah received four years of imprisonment each and Mohammad Suleman, Izzat Khan and Mohammad Ilyas two years of imprisonment each for Timergara attack and Mohammad Ayaz two years of imprisonment for his role in the Peshawar violent protests.

The appellants have contended that they were booked and convicted in their cases unlawfully, unconstitutionally and in derogation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan.

They stated that they were arrested after the May 9, 2023, protests and since then they had remained in illegal custody of the military till announcement of their convictions.They stated that all the safeguards provided to them in the criminal laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure that ensured fair trial had been denied to the appellants.

They claimed that the prosecuting authority had even failed to comply with the safeguards provided in the Army Act, thereby infringing upon the rights of the appellants rendering their convictions illegal.

The appellants stated that they were civilians but had been treated worst than terrorists as terrorists were tried in anti-terrorism courts, decisions of which were subjected to the judicial hierarchy of the country whereas no such safeguards were available to the appellants after their conviction.

They contended that they were innocent and the FGCM had convicted them without any justification.