The conviction and 14-year sentence handed down this week to former ISI chief Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed have reopened long-standing questions about the interface between security institutions and civilian politics, and about how accountability is exercised within structures that are central to the state’s stability and security.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s subsequent remarks, linking major political developments, including the ouster of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, to Mr Hameed’s role, have added a political dimension to what should, at its core, have remained a legal and institutional process. These claims underscore the importance of clarity about the boundaries between professional responsibilities and political involvement, boundaries that are essential to the credibility of all state institutions. That the military has proceeded against a former intelligence chief through its own legal mechanisms is, in itself, notable. It reflects an acknowledgment that discipline and adherence to rules apply even at the highest levels. This step deserves recognition.
At the same time, accountability derives its strength not from isolated cases but from consistency. If engagement in political activity is deemed a violation of service rules, then standards must be applied evenly and transparently. This is not a question of targeting individuals, but of reinforcing norms that protect institutions from the corrosive effects of politicisation.
The legal framework governing this case, including amendments to the Army Act introduced in 2023, places clear restrictions on political activity by officers who held sensitive appointments after retirement. Where such provisions are breached, enforcement is both legitimate and necessary. Equally important, however, is ensuring that due process is scrupulously observed, including the right to appeal and the fair treatment of any related cases that may arise.
Pakistan’s troubled civil-military history has been marked by cycles of intervention followed by amnesia. We finally have a chance–perhaps a rare one–to break that pattern. Doing so would serve not only democratic governance but also the long-term credibility of the military as a professional, apolitical institution. The promise that no individual is above the law must be upheld in a manner that reinforces institutions, respects due process, and strengthens public confidence in the state as a whole.
The implications of this case also extend to the political forces that benefited from the period now under scrutiny. If political outcomes were shaped through improper institutional involvement, then the question of accountability cannot rest solely with those in uniform. Civilian leaders and parties that gained from such interventions must also reflect on their conduct and the long-term damage caused to democratic norms. For the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in particular, this moment presents an opportunity to engage in introspection rather than hiding behind convenient narratives.
