While announcing Rawalpindi’s decision to try its own former spymaster Lt Gen Faiz Hameed [Retired] by a Field General Court Martial [FGCM], Pakistan Army’s media wing Inter Services Public Relations [ISPR] clarified that the same was done in compliance of orders from the Supreme Court “to ascertain correctness of complaints in Top City Case made against Lt Gen Faiz Hameed (Retd).”
The statement added that the accusations against the former Army spy chief were found to be true by a court of inquiry and “Consequently, appropriate disciplinary action has been initiated against Lt Gen Faiz Hameed (Retd), under provisions of Pakistan Army Act.” ISPR also mentioned that “multiple instances of violation of Pakistan Army Act [by Lt Gen Hameed] post retirement have also been established.”
ISPR’s failure to provide details of the nature of violations allegedly committed by the former Director General [DG] of Inter Services Intelligence [ISI] after his retirement has naturally raised suspicions that some other considerations were at play and the decision to court martial him has a political angle. This apprehension has gained further strength as former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s proximity to Lt Gen Hameed is no secret and leaders of the ruling parties have said as much in no uncertain terms.
Dawn has rightly opined that the “armed forces should dispel the impression being created in some quarters that the arrest is somehow a political one,” and astutely pointed out that “It ought to be asked why it took so long to investigate the former spy chief, especially when the armed forces claim to have deployed very strict internal controls to ensure accountability.”
Rawalpindi’s Power Play
With ISPR’s subsequent announcement that three retired Army officers have also been taken into military custody “in connection with the FGCM proceedings [against Lt Gen Hameed] for their actions prejudicial to military discipline,” the plot only gets thicker, because this section of The Pakistan Army Act is meant to be used only in cases where crime the committed doesn’t fall within purview of any specified offence.
However, by adding that “Further investigations of certain retired officers and their accomplices for fomenting instability at the behest of in collusion with vested political interests are continuing,” ISPR has left no room for any doubts. It’s evident that Rawalpindi is clearly trying to politically emasculate Khan completely by spinning its narrative of an anti-national nexus between Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf [PTI] party and Lt Gen Hameed along with his coterie of retired Army officers.
That Pakistan Army chief Gen Syed Asim Munir has an axe to grind with both the PTI chief and former DG ISI is no secret-the former was responsible for his unceremonious ouster from the prestigious DG ISI appointment while the latter was the one Khan wanted for this job. The May 9 anti-Army riots in Pakistan gave Gen Munir an excellent opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, and he hasn’t wasted it.
There can be no two views that the current political crisis in Pakistan has been precipitated by Gen Munir’s reckless attempt to replicate his predecessor Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s stratagem of installing a “selected” prime minister. This he did by firstly manipulating the elections using every trick in the book to discredit Khan and the PTI party, followed by vote rigging and even manipulating results in favour of PML-N and PPP in several places.
Pakistan’s Military Establishment
The Friday Times editor-at-large Raza Rumi not only declared these elections “farcical,” but also warned that “The new coalition government led by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz[PML-N] and supported by the Pakistan People’s Party [PPP] will be haunted by a deepening economic crisis and issues of legitimacy,”– a prediction that’s come true.
But Rumi went wrong on one issue. Mentioning the fact that “the PTI had already declared on numerous occasions that he is willing to talk,” TFT editor-at-large had reckoned “that time may have arrived, and within a year or sooner, a negotiated settlement cannot be ruled out.” However, Gen Munir’s outright refusal to engage with Khan has foreclosed this constructive option that could well resolve the ongoing political crisis created by the Army chief himself!
Another related issue is the role played by the judiciary. It was the Supreme Court of Pakistan that directed the Top City Housing Scheme owner to seek remedy for his grievances against Lt Gen Hameed through relevant channels including the Ministry of Defence. This court order pertains to a case filed by the plaintiff in November 2023 regarding an incident that purportedly occurred on May 12, 2017.
The Supreme Court’s decision to accept the petitioner’s plea even after a lapse of more than six years is indeed commendable. However, what defies comprehension is the apex court’s order of September 13, 2023 in which it cited the delay factor as a reason that in itself was good enough to merit rejection of an appeal.
Political Vendetta
This case pertains to an appeal filed by two Pakistan Army officers in 2000 against their conviction and prison term of four years awarded by a FGCM in 1996 on legal and technical grounds. The two officers along with 40 others were found guilty of conspiring to overthrow the Benazir Bhutto Government and eliminate the Army’s top by attacking the corps commanders’ conference venue where they were scheduled to congregate on Sep 30, 1995.
On September 12, 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the issues raised by the petitioners on merit, while observing that the petitioners “could not give sufficient reason as to why they remained silent for years and did not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction well in time, therefore, on this score alone, their constitutional petitions are liable to be dismissed.” [Emphasis added].
Since the revision petition was filed in 2000, the convicted officers would have by then either already completed or were near completing their sentences, and so, what they were seeking was obviously the restoration of their honour and undoing the ignominy of being branded mutineers. So, while the Supreme Court graciously admitted the Top City Housing Scheme owner’s plea after a lapse of more than six years, why did it comment adversely on a four year delay by two aggrieved Army officers?
Perhaps a legal expert could clarify.