The Pakistan Army upholds strong accountability within its ranks. As a key institution in the country, it maintains a rigorous system to ensure integrity, discipline, and operational effectiveness.
The Pakistan Army operates under a clear legal framework, including the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which governs conduct and discipline. Military courts address offenses, ensuring that personnel are held accountable for violations and maintaining discipline within the ranks. The Army utilizes various internal oversight bodies to monitor and ensure regulatory compliance. These include specialized units for auditing and reviewing operational and financial activities.
At the recent Corps Commanders’ Conference, the COAS also reiterated the importance of strict accountability, affirming that no one is above the process, and this commitment enhances national pride and recognition of the Army’s proactive stance
Regular inspections and reviews are carried out to verify adherence to procedures and standards. The Pakistan Army undergoes audits by the Auditor General of Pakistan, which assess financial management of military expenditures to ensure effective and transparent use of funds. This oversight helps prevent financial mismanagement and corruption, fostering fiscal responsibility.
Procurement processes within the army are strictly regulated, with a focus on transparency to ensure resources are acquired efficiently and ethically. Adherence to established procedures and regular reviews help prevent irregularities and maintain accountability in resource allocation. The Pakistan Army upholds a rigorous code of conduct that emphasizes integrity, professionalism, and ethical behaviour.
Service members must adhere to established standards, with any deviations addressed through disciplinary actions. This code is essential for preserving the army’s reputation and operational effectiveness. A structured system is in place for handling complaints and grievances, including channels for reporting misconduct or unfair treatment. These mechanisms ensure thorough investigation and resolution of issues, fostering a transparent and accountable environment.
Training programmes in the Pakistan Army stress the importance of accountability and adherence to standards. Personnel are educated on their responsibilities and the procedures for reporting and resolving issues, instilling a culture of responsibility and professionalism from the start. Regular performance evaluations and feedback mechanisms assess the effectiveness and accountability of personnel, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring adherence to conduct and performance standards.
Senior leadership is pivotal in maintaining accountability, with commanding officers and higher officials ensuring their subordinates follow regulations and ethical standards. They conduct periodic reviews and audits to maintain oversight and address any issues. External oversight bodies, such as parliamentary committees, also contribute to accountability by reviewing military operations and expenditures, adding an additional layer of checks and balances.
The Pakistan Army’s commitment to accountability is demonstrated by its response to significant incidents. For example, following the 2015 Panama Papers leak, which implicated several high-profile figures, including some with military connections, the Army conducted an internal review to address potential implications for military personnel. The leadership ensured that implicated individuals faced appropriate scrutiny, showing its commitment to transparency and integrity.
Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad, launched in 2017, involved extensive counter-terrorism efforts and military operations to maintain stability in Pakistan. During the operation, the Pakistan Army enforced stringent accountability measures to ensure that personnel actions conformed to legal and ethical standards. This involved regular oversight of military operations, strict adherence to rules of engagement, and thorough documentation of activities. The army’s dedication to transparency and compliance with international norms was evident in its conduct, which aimed to minimize civilian casualties and ensure accountability for all actions.
In 2018, the Pakistan Army supported national efforts to combat corruption by addressing allegations of financial mismanagement and corruption across various sectors. The Army’s role included conducting internal audits and reviews of military financial transactions and procurement processes. Leadership took proactive measures to ensure that any allegations involving military personnel were thoroughly investigated. This proactive approach preserved the Army’s reputation for integrity and supported broader national anti-corruption efforts. During the 1999 Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan, there was significant military engagement in the Kargil region. After the conflict, extensive reviews of military conduct and strategies were conducted. The Pakistan Army carried out an internal review to evaluate operational and strategic decisions, assess military leadership performance, and identify lessons learned. This review aimed to ensure accountability for any shortcomings and improve future strategic planning and execution.
In 2021, a tragic military helicopter crash raised concerns about operational safety and accountability. The Army responded by launching a thorough investigation, examining maintenance procedures, operational protocols, and pilot conduct. The inquiry’s findings led to recommendations for enhanced safety measures and procedural improvements.
In 2019, the Army introduced a new accountability framework designed to improve transparency and efficiency. This framework updated procedures for financial management, procurement, and internal audits, emphasizing adherence to ethical standards and introducing new mechanisms for reporting and addressing grievances. This initiative reflected the Army’s commitment to modernizing its accountability systems.
The Army also has a noteworthy Field General Court Martial system that applies uniformly to all ranks. Recent Field General Court Martial proceedings involving a retired Army general have sparked speculation, partly due to public unfamiliarity with the process. The Field General Court Martial procedure consists of three stages: before the commencement, during the process, and after completion. In the initial stage, a summary of evidence is recorded, including statements from prosecution and defence witnesses and the accused. The accused has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and a provisional charge sheet is prepared. The evidence summary is then forwarded to the Judge Advocate General’s Department to initiate the case. The Judge Advocate General drafts a detailed report based on the recommendations, leading to the preparation of a charge sheet. Subsequently, an order is issued by the relevant authorities to convene a Field General Court Martial.
In the second or trial stage, the Field General Court Martial process begins. This involves establishing the court, swearing in the president and other members, and granting the accused the right to select a counsel of his choice. Additionally, the accused is provided with a Defence Officer, who assists in guiding the case. During this stage, both the prosecution and defence counsel present their cases before the court, witness statements are recorded under oath, and prosecution witnesses are subjected to cross-examination. Witnesses can be fully cross-examined during this stage.
The defence witnesses are also cross-examined, and the accused’s statement recorded. Then the prosecution and defence counsel discuss the witness statements, and after all cross-examinations are completed, the court deliberates on its decision. Once the hearing is concluded, the court submits all proceedings to the Judge Advocate General Department for further investigation and legal review.
After this scrutiny, the findings and proceedings are forwarded to the relevant competent authority for confirmation. If the sentence involves imprisonment with hard labor, the offender is handed over to the jail authorities. Upon confirmation of the sentence by the COAS or relevant authority, the offender has the right to appeal within 40 days, or request clemency from the COAS, who may reduce or waive the sentence entirely.
The court-martial system is essential for upholding discipline and accountability, particularly among senior officers. Historically, high-profile cases involving senior military personnel have demonstrated the army’s commitment to maintaining high standards of conduct. For example, after the 1958 coup led by General Ayub Khan, martial law was imposed, and senior officers who opposed the new regime faced court-martial proceedings. These court-martials, aimed at consolidating the new government’s control, resulted in demotions, imprisonments, and dismissals, helping to solidify the new military order. Similarly, following the 1999 Kargil Conflict, senior officers were scrutinized for their decisions and actions. Post-conflict reviews led to several court-martial proceedings for officers involved in the operation, such as Brigadier (retd) Amir, who faced court-martial for operational failures.
The resulting punishments, including retirement in disgrace and reprimands, underscored the army’s commitment to addressing operational shortcomings and maintaining accountability. The 2011 Abbottabad raid by U.S. Navy SEALs, which resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, sparked substantial controversy and led to intense scrutiny of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services.
Subsequent reviews led to court-martials for senior officers accused of security and intelligence failures. Following the Abbottabad incident, several high-ranking officers faced court-martial proceedings for their inability to detect and prevent the operation. Investigations focused on the conduct of the officers responsible for security in the area, with punishments including dismissals and formal reprimands.
In 2017, a major corruption scandal involving high-ranking military officials emerged, with allegations of fund mismanagement and procurement irregularities. The Pakistan Army responded with thorough investigations, resulting in several court-martials. Officers found guilty faced punishments such as demotion, dismissal, and imprisonment; for instance, Maj Gen (retd) Shahid was dismissed and faced legal consequences for financial misconduct. This underscored the army’s zero-tolerance stance on corruption.
In 2019, Brig (retd) Nadeem faced court-martial for operational misconduct and authority misuse, resulting in his dismissal and a formal reprimand. In 2022, Lt Gen (retd.) Asim Bajwa was court-martialed for financial misconduct and mismanagement, leading to his dismissal and legal actions.
The recent court-martial of a former Corps Commander further demonstrated the army’s commitment to accountability and transparency. In a recent press briefing, DG ISPR revealed that an application concerning the Top City case involving Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed was received through the Ministry of Defence.
The application, dated August 12, indicated that the Army discovered breaches of the Army Act by the retired officer both during and after service, leading to the initiation of court-martial proceedings. The DG ISPR underscored that the Army does not support any political party or agenda. However, the self-accountability system is activated if any member attempts to pursue a political agenda for personal gain.
He stressed that the accountability process is transparent, evidence-based, and impartial, that The Faiz Hameed case demonstrated the Army’s commitment to addressing violations driven by personal or political motives. He assured that actions will be taken against anyone involved in the case, regardless of their status, with full rights to legal representation and cross-examination. The DG noted that such stringent self-accountability serves as a model for other institutions, illustrating that misuse of one’s position for personal or political gain would not be tolerated.
At the recent Corps Commanders’ Conference, the COAS also reiterated the importance of strict accountability, affirming that no one is above the process, and this commitment enhances national pride and recognition of the Army’s proactive stance.
