Islamabad, Pakistan – July 31, 2025 – Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) in Lahore and Sargodha have delivered significant verdicts in cases related to the May 9, 2023, unrest, resulting in both convictions and acquittals of prominent political figures. These decisions come amidst ongoing legal proceedings stemming from the widespread protests that followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
In Lahore, Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced several individuals, including Dr. Yasmin Rashid, former provincial minister Mian Mehmoodur Rasheed, Senator Ejaz Chaudhry, and former Punjab Governor Omar Sarfraz Cheema, to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in connection with cases related to arson and vandalism at Sherpao Bridge. Other individuals also received similar sentences. Conversely, former Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was acquitted in the Sherpao Bridge case, along with five other accused, including Hamza Azeem, Aitzaz Rafiq, Rana Tanvir, Iftikhar Ahmad, and Zayas Khan.
Separately, Anti-Terrorism Court in Sargodha also handed down 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentences to dozens of individuals, including Leader of the Opposition in the Punjab Assembly Ahmed Khan Bhachar and former MNA Rana Bilal Ijaz, in another May 9th riots case.
In Faisalabad, Anti-Terrorism Court delivered verdicts in two May 9th cases, convicting a total of 167 accused. Among those sentenced to 10-year prison terms are prominent figures such as Omar Ayub, Shibli Faraz, Zartaj Gul, and MNA Sahibzada Hamid Raza. In the case concerning an attack on a sensitive institution, 108 out of 185 accused were convicted, while the remaining were acquitted. In another May 9th case registered in Ghulam Mohammadabad, 58 out of 66 accused received 10-year sentences, with 8 individuals being acquitted. Notably, the Faisalabad court acquitted Sial Castro, Fawad Chaudhry, and Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s son, Zain Qureshi.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leadership has expressed strong reservations regarding the convictions, vowing to challenge the verdicts in higher courts, including the Supreme Court. They maintain that the convictions were handed down without fulfilling the requirements of due process and are politically motivated.
You May Like To Read:
