Abstract
This commentary examines the rise and fall of former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General (retd.) Faiz Hameed as a revealing case study of Pakistan’s civil–military relations. It argues that Hameed’s conviction and fourteen-year sentence cannot be understood solely through the formal language of legal accountability. Rather, his downfall reflects a deeper process of political recalibration following the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan, in which personal loyalties, institutional boundaries, and the need for military to reassert its authority played their roles. By situating Hameed’s career within Pakistan’s longer history of military dominance, selective accountability, and hybrid governance, the commentary highlights how proximity to civilian political power can shift from strategic advantage to existential liability during moments of regime transition.
Introduction
Pakistan’s political history is shaped by an enduring imbalance between civilian authority and military power. While elected governments have come and gone, the military has remained the most stable and consequential institution in the state, exercising decisive influence over political outcomes both directly and indirectly. Within this framework, senior military officers who operate at the intersection of security and politics often acquire extraordinary informal power, even as they remain formally subordinate to institutional discipline.
In this context, the sentencing of Lieutenant General (retd.) Faiz Hameed represents a notable departure from established patterns. Historically, generals who fall out of favour tend to retreat into quiet retirement, protected by institutional norms of discretion and mutual silence. Public prosecution and imprisonment, especially on such a scale, are rare. Faiz Hameed’s case therefore invites broader questions about the changing dynamics of civil–military relations, the limits of political engagement for military officers, and the mechanisms through which the establishment enforces conformity after periods of internal strain.
This commentary contends that Faiz Hameed’s fall cannot be adequately explained by the charges levelled against him alone. Instead, it must be understood as the outcome of a political rupture in which his close association with Imran Khan transformed him from a valued institutional actor into a symbol of overreach and misalignment. His trajectory illustrates the risks inherent in personalizing power within a system that ultimately prioritizes institutional survival over individual loyalty.
Personal Loyalty as Political Capital
During the late 2010s, Faiz Hameed emerged as one of the most influential figures within Pakistan’s security establishment. His ascent coincided with the rise of Imran Khan, whose anti-elite rhetoric and promise of reform resonated with large segments of the population. In this context, Faiz Hameed’s perceived closeness to Khan became a central feature of Pakistan’s political discourse. This relationship was interpreted in multiple, often contradictory, ways. Supporters framed it as an alignment of reformist intent between a civilian leader and a professional soldier. Critics viewed it as evidence of political engineering and undue military involvement in democratic processes.
Regardless of this perspective, the perception of intimacy between the two significantly enhanced Faiz Hameed’s political capital. In Pakistan’s hybrid system, where informal influence often outweighs formal authority, such proximity can amplify an individual’s power far beyond their official mandate. However, personal loyalty operates as a double-edged sword. While it can facilitate access and influence during periods of political ascendancy, it also erodes plausible deniability. When political fortunes change, the same relationships that once conferred authority can be reframed as evidence of partisanship and institutional breach.
The critical inflection point in Faiz Hameed’s career occurred in October 2021, when the military leadership decided to transfer him from the ISI to command a corps. Such transfers are routine within the army’s personnel system and are designed to reinforce the principle that no individual is indispensable to any single post. What transformed this administrative decision into a national controversy was Prime Minister Imran Khan’s public resistance to the move. By challenging the transfer, Khan disrupted long-standing norms governing civil–military interaction.
The episode exposed a rare and visible disagreement between the civilian executive and the army high command, undermining the image of institutional cohesion that the military carefully cultivates. Faiz Hameed, positioned at the center of this dispute, came to symbolise the perceived politicisation of the intelligence apparatus. From the military’s perspective, the controversy raised fundamental concerns about discipline, hierarchy, and precedent. If a prime minister could successfully block the transfer of a senior intelligence official, it would signal an erosion of institutional autonomy. The eventual enforcement of the transfer thus represented not merely a personnel decision, but a reassertion of authority. In the process, Faiz Hameed’s standing within the institution was irreversibly weakened.
Post-Imran Politics and the Logic of Accountability
Following Imran Khan’s removal from office in April 2022, Pakistan entered a period of intense political volatility. Khan’s refusal to accept his ouster, combined with his public criticism of senior military figures, marked a significant departure from conventional post-removal behavior. The military, accustomed to managing transitions with minimal public backlash, found itself confronting an unprecedented populist challenge.
It was in this environment that Faiz Hameed’s past associations acquired renewed significance. His voluntary retirement did not insulate him from scrutiny; instead, it preceded a court martial that was officially justified on grounds of legal and professional misconduct. The charges, which included violations of the Official Secrets Act and political interference, were presented as evidence of individual wrongdoing. Yet accountability in Pakistan has rarely been neutral or evenly applied. The initiation of proceedings against Faiz Hameed must be understood within a broader strategy of institutional recalibration. By targeting a figure closely associated with the Imran Khan era, the establishment signaled a clear break from a period it now sought to disown. Legal process, in this sense, functioned as a mechanism for political closure.
The events of 9 May 2023, when protests following Imran Khan’s arrest escalated into attacks on military installations, represented a profound shock to the armed forces. For decades, the military had maintained a carefully constructed aura of inviolability, shielded from direct public anger even during moments of national crisis. The breach of this informal boundary triggered a forceful institutional response. In the aftermath, the establishment moved decisively to reassert deterrence and discipline.
Faiz Hameed’s alleged sympathy toward Imran Khan’s movement, whether substantiated or inferred, placed him within the narrative of betrayal that emerged after 9 May. In this context, his prosecution served a broader symbolic function: it reinforced the message that dissent, even indirect or perceived, would be met with severe consequences. The absence of publicly disclosed evidence did little to weaken this narrative within institutional circles. In systems where power is centralized and opaque, certainty is often internally generated rather than externally demonstrated. Once Faiz Hameed was positioned as a residual threat to institutional authority, his fate became increasingly predictable.
The fourteen-year sentence imposed on Faiz Hameed carries significance that extends beyond the individual. It represents a rare public disciplining of a senior general and thus serves as a warning to serving officers about the limits of acceptable political engagement. The punishment reinforces the principle that loyalty to individuals must never supersede loyalty to the institution. At the same time, the case reflects the military’s effort to reshape its own narrative. By isolating and punishing a prominent figure associated with a controversial political period, the institution seeks to preserve its long-term legitimacy. In this sense, Faiz Hameed’s downfall functions as an act of institutional memory management, delineating what is to be remembered and what is to be repudiated.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of Faiz Hameed encapsulate the structural tensions at the heart of Pakistan’s civil–military order. His ascent was facilitated by personal trust, political alignment, and the informal power that flows from proximity to civilian leadership. His downfall was precipitated by the same factors once political alignments shifted and institutional anxieties intensified. This case underscores a persistent dilemma within Pakistan’s political system. Civilian leaders often seek military allies to govern effectively, while the military seeks influence without responsibility for political outcomes. When these objectives diverge, individuals positioned at the intersection become expendable. Ultimately, Faiz Hameed’s story is less an anomaly than a reflection of systemic patterns. It illustrates how loyalty can be reinterpreted as transgression, how accountability can serve political ends, and how institutional survival consistently outweighs individual careers. Until Pakistan resolves the fundamental imbalance between civilian authority and military power, similar cycles of ascent, rupture, and retribution are likely to remain embedded in its hybrid political culture.
*Dr. Syed Eesar Mehdi is a Research Fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi, India. The views expressed are his own.
Comments