EDITORIAL: Whether this moment changes anything will depend less on the length of Lt Gen Faiz Hameed’s (retd) sentence and more on what the institution does next. A Field General Court Martial has handed a former ISI chief 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment, after a 15-month process under the Pakistan Army Act and the Official Secrets Act.
It is, by any measure, an extraordinary step. Yet it will only matter in the long term if it becomes the start of a consistent standard rather than a one-off reckoning with one man.
The bare facts are already historic. Proceedings began on 12 August 2024 and, according to the military’s own account, involved lengthy and laborious hearings in which the former spymaster was represented by a defence team of his choice.
He was convicted on four counts; breaches of discipline, misuse of authority, engaging in political activities, and conduct described as detrimental to the safety and interest of the state, alongside unauthorised handling of classified information.
Under Section 133B of the Army Act, he retains the right to appeal within 40 days, before an appellate forum headed by the army chief or his nominees. For a retired three-star general who once headed the country’s principal intelligence agency, that is indeed a remarkable fall.
It is equally important, though, to remember what this verdict is and what it is not. The case that produced this sentence arose from the Top City housing society dispute, brought to the Supreme Court in 2023 by its chief executive.
The petition alleged an unlawful raid in 2017, the seizure and partial non-return of valuables, and financial coercion involving serving and retired officers. Those allegations led to an inquiry into misuse of authority, extortion claims and the handling of state power in a private dispute.
The prosecution framed these as violations of good order, civil offences triable by court martial, and secrecy obligations. Serious as these matters are, they relate to one trajectory in a much wider record that has been the subject of public debate for years.
That is why the wording of the ISPR statement matters. It stressed that the conviction covers breaches already tried, but also noted that alleged involvement in fomenting “vested political agitation and instability in cohorts with political elements” is being pursued in separate proceedings. In other words, the sentence handed down recently does not close the file.
The political dimensions of the former ISI chief’s conduct, which lie at the heart of many of the public concerns around his tenure, are still being examined on a different track. Any assessment of the moment must therefore recognise that what has just happened addresses one small part of the picture.
The risk is that this case becomes monumental in symbolism yet limited in practice. It is easy to hail the conviction of a figure who was widely regarded as a powerful broker during a particularly charged period in the country’s politics.
It is harder to embed the principle that misuse of authority, political engineering and the unauthorised use of state machinery will attract consequences whoever is involved and whenever it is uncovered. That is what will determine whether this is a break with selective justice or another exceptional episode that leaves the underlying culture intact.
There is also a question of transparency. The army has presented this verdict as the outcome of its internal accountability mechanisms, and it is entitled to point to the length and formal structure of the process.
Yet public confidence in any system of accountability, civilian or military, rests on the perception that procedures are fair, evidence based and insulated from convenience.
A closed court martial, by definition, limits visibility. That makes it all the more important that the handling of the remaining allegations, especially those relating to political agitation, is beyond reproach in both substance and communication. Without that, doubts will persist about why certain cases move and others do not.
For now, the conviction of Faiz Hameed stands as a sharp marker in a system that has seldom reached this far up the chain of command. It acknowledges that even the most senior officers are formally answerable when they overstep their mandate.
Yet the harder test lies ahead. If this verdict is to matter in the way the moment demands, it must be followed by a broader willingness to confront the costs of unaccountable power, to deal with all strands of alleged misconduct, and to ensure that the rules invoked here are applied evenly rather than selectively.
Until that happens, this will remain what it is today; an unprecedented case, significant in itself, but not quite yet the precedent that many in this country have long been waiting for.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments