This is apropos two back-to-back letters to the Editor by this writer carried by the newspaper on Saturday and yesterday.
In my view, some politicians are taking this opportunity to argue that there has been accountability for army officers, civil servants, and politicians, and that now it is time to hold judges accountable, bringing to justice those who have violated their oaths and judicial codes of conduct.
Others are expressing their desire to invoke Article 6 against the PTI chairman for allegedly fomenting mutiny within the armed forces and calling for the PTI former chairman’s trial under the army courts.
Amongst these speculative and mostly unvalidated observations and imaginary scenarios, let us try to get the clarity of the army’s standpoint by decoding the ISPR’s Press Release. It used the acronym “FGCM”, which stands for “Field General Court Martial”. It is a type of military court used to try members of the armed forces who are accused of serious offenses.
The Field General Court Martial is the highest level of court martial in the military justice system, typically dealing with grave charges such as mutiny, treason, desertion, or other severe breaches of military law. The proceedings are conducted by senior military officers, and the court has the authority to impose significant penalties, including imprisonment and even the death penalty, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the offense.
The Press Release used the phrase that “three retired officers are in military custody for actions “prejudicial to military discipline,” it means that these officers are being held by military authorities because they are suspected of engaging in activities or conduct that undermined or harmed the discipline, order, or integrity of the armed forces.
Even though they are retired, these officers are subjected to military law if their actions are deemed serious enough to warrant it, especially if those actions took place while they were still in service or if the offenses are linked to military matters.
Being in military custody suggests that they are being investigated or possibly facing legal proceedings within the military justice system for these alleged offenses.
The last para indicated said that, “Further investigations of certain retired officers and their accomplices for fomenting instability at the behest of and in collusion with vested political interests are continuing”.
This means that ongoing investigations are being conducted into the actions of certain retired military officers and their accomplices. These investigations focus on their alleged involvement in creating or promoting instability, such as disorder, unrest, or challenges to the established order.
The phrase “at the behest of and in collusion with vested political interests” suggests that these retired officers and their associates are believed to have acted under the direction or influence of specific political groups or individuals who have a particular interest in causing instability for their own benefit. “Collusion” implies that these parties worked together, likely in a secretive or deceptive manner, to achieve this shared goal of destabilizing the situation.
Now that we have deciphered the press release to a large extent, let’s try to put it in proper perspective. The entire episode was triggered by the events of May 9. The army took action against many serving and retired officers soon after the incident. This fresh wave of arrests, coming nearly a year later, reflects the ongoing investigation.
According to the press release, all individuals—whether civilian or military, retired or serving—who masterminded the events of May 9, along with those who aided in fomenting instability at the behest of and in collusion with vested political interests, will eventually be arrested and subjected to punishment commensurate with the severity of their crimes.
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.