Faiz Hameed files appeal against military court sentence

Former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed has formally challenged the 14-year sentence awarded to him by a military court, setting the stage for a closely watched appeal process amid unresolved questions over the right of appeal for civilians and retired officers convicted by military tribunals.

Advocate Mian Ali Ashfaq told The Express Tribune that the appeal was filed with the army chief two days ago. He added that a separate application has been submitted to the registrar of the Court of Appeal at GHQ seeking a copy of the written verdict in order to file additional grounds in the appeal.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the former ISI chief has not been shifted to Adiala Jail and is currently being detained at the Special Prison Rawalpindi, which is headed by a deputy superintendent.

Lawyers who conduct trials in military courts say that, as a general practice, written judgments are provided to convicted persons only after intervention by a high court.

There is no direct right of appeal against military court verdicts in superior courts. However, convicts may challenge such decisions through writ jurisdiction in the high courts, where the scope of judicial review remains limited.

In its majority ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the trial of civilians in military courts. However, in its judgment dated May 7, the court directed the federal government to take steps for appropriate legislation to grant a right of appeal to civilians convicted by military courts.

Despite the passage of several months, the government has yet to take any steps to comply with that directive.

A senior lawyer said the proposed legislation would need to clarify whether the right of appeal would also extend to retired military officers such as Faiz Hameed.

According to the military, Hameed was found guilty on December 11 by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) on four counts: engaging in political activities; violating the Official Secrets Act "in a manner detrimental to the safety and interest of the state"; misuse of authority and government resources; and causing wrongful loss to individuals.

Under Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act, an accused has 40 days from the date of conviction to file an appeal. Hameed's challenge will be heard by a Court of Appeals headed by a major general or a senior officer nominated by the army chief, who may uphold, modify or set aside the sentence.

Hameed's prosecution stems from a 2017 complaint filed by property developer Kanwar Moeez Khan, who alleged that Hameed - then a serving major general in ISI - along with two other officers, raided his residence and business premises, confiscated valuables, and forced him to pay Rs40 million while also compelling him to fund a private television channel.

The matter resurfaced in 2023 after the Supreme Court directed Khan to approach the defence ministry, which subsequently initiated a military inquiry. A Court of Inquiry constituted in April 2024 found sufficient grounds to proceed, leading to Hameed's arrest on August 12 that year.

According to the military's media wing, FGCM proceedings began on August 12, 2024, and continued for approximately 15 months before the verdict was announced.

Following what the Inter-Services Public Relations described as "lengthy and laborious legal proceedings", the court found Hameed guilty on all counts, with the sentence taking effect on December 11, 2025.

The ISPR further stated that Hameed's "involvement in fomenting vested political agitation and instability in cohorts with political elements and in certain other matters" is being dealt with separately.

Hameed, who retired from military service in November 2022, became the first former ISI director general and only the second three-star general in Pakistan's history to be tried by a military court and sentenced to imprisonment.

The inquiry also extended to several other retired military officers, including retired Brig Ghaffar, retired Brig Naeem Fakhar and retired Col Asim. However, the court's decision did not specify their legal status or record any findings against them.