The Anti-Terrorism Court in Lahore has ruled that the May 9 Incident cannot be classified as a peaceful protest under any global standard. Judge Manzer Ali Gill, in his detailed judgment on the Rahat Bakery case, observed that coordinated assaults were carried out in multiple cities at the same time. He said the targets included government offices, military sites, and monuments connected with the armed forces.
The court found evidence that senior leaders of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf had played a role in plotting the violent episodes that followed the arrest of party founder Imran Khan. The verdict noted that the attacks were not spontaneous but planned. As a result, PTI leaders including Omer Sarfraz Cheema, Ijaz Chaudhry, Mian Mehmood-ur-Rasheed, and Dr Yasmin Rashid were each sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Judge Gill remarked that protesting itself was never a crime. But once aggression and destruction became part of the action, the very nature of protest changed. He highlighted that across the world, demonstrators march peacefully with placards without damaging public or state property. In Pakistan, however, police stations, army compounds, and state buildings were stormed during the May 9 Incident.
The court also pointed to the abundance of digital evidence still accessible online. Judge Gill said videos, photos, and other content remain available on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, X, and TikTok. He stressed that “just by clicking the link, anyone can still view the tragic scenes in detail.”
During the trial, defence lawyers for the convicted PTI leaders raised over 100 objections to the prosecution’s case. They argued that the evidence was weak and could not hold under scrutiny. They pointed out that none of the accused were named in the first FIR. The document carried no description of their roles, no claim of provocation, and no explanation for the delay in its filing. Lawyers also highlighted contradictions in witness accounts and case timelines.
Defence counsel further stated that no proof was presented of vehicles or property being set ablaze. CCTV footage and call data records were withheld. They argued that CDs and USBs shown in court lacked authentication and were never played back as required by the Supreme Court. According to them, such digital material was legally inadmissible. They also said the punishment amounted to double jeopardy since the same testimonies and evidence were used in other cases.
Two policemen, who testified as “conspiracy witnesses,” also faced tough cross-examination. Head Constable Muhammad Khalid admitted his assignment to monitor PTI leaders at Zaman Park was given orally. He confirmed that no FIR was filed about the alleged meetings. He kept no log of his duty timings, had no recordings, and never returned to the site with investigators.
Sub-Inspector Hassam Afzal gave similar admissions. He said his duty was also assigned verbally. His mobile phone was never seized or checked. He did not carry a phone during visits to Zaman Park. He was unfamiliar with residents around Imran Khan’s residence. He conceded that he neither made any video recordings nor invited others to confirm the gatherings.
The May 9 Incident judgment now stands as a key ruling on how violent protests are handled in Pakistan. The case has underlined the court’s view that political demonstrations turn unlawful the moment violence, conspiracy, and destruction become part of the strategy.
