The recent conclusion of a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) in Pakistan has triggered a structured and carefully regulated legal process that ensures accountability while protecting individual rights.
High-profile court martial proceedings, such as the recent conclusion of the FGCM of a former DG of the ISI, illustrate how Pakistan’s legal and military systems harmonise statutory mandates with civil oversight. Once a court martial concludes, the journey from verdict to the execution of a sentence is guided by precise provisions in the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the Pakistan Army Rules, 1954 and the Prisons Act, 1894.
Under Section 133 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, a sentence awarded by a court martial does not automatically take effect. It must first be confirmed by the competent confirming authority, ensuring that the procedural requirements have been met and that the sentence is legally valid. This statutory confirmation is critical because it prevents any arbitrary or unlawful enforcement and ensures compliance with both military law and constitutional safeguards. Until this confirmation, the court martial verdict remains provisional and no execution of the sentence may occur.
Once confirmed, the sentence becomes executable under the framework provided by Section 169 of the Army Act. This provision empowers the competent military authority, in consultation with the federal government, to direct whether the sentence is to be served in a military prison or a civil facility. When the sentence is directed to a civil jail, a warrant of commitment is issued under the Pakistan Army Rules, 1954, specifying the nature of the sentence, its duration and the civil facility where it will be served.
Upon presentation of this warrant, the superintendent of the civil jail is legally obliged to accept custody under the Prisons Act, 1894, marking the commencement of lawful civil imprisonment. This ensures that civil authorities recognise and enforce the military-imposed sentence without altering its legal character.
While the civil prison administration assumes responsibility for day-to-day management, including discipline, medical care and security, it lacks authority to modify, remit or interfere with the sentence itself. The original military verdict continues to define the legal nature and enforceability of the imprisonment. This dual oversight ensures that military accountability is upheld while civil custodial safeguards are observed, maintaining transparency, order and legality.
Another key aspect of military imprisonment is the regime of remission, pardon and commutation. Military convicts do not automatically benefit from ordinary civil prison remission provisions under provincial laws. Section 176 of the Pakistan Army Act vests the power to remit, commute, or suspend any sentence exclusively in the federal government, the chief of army staff or other authorities expressly empowered under the Act.
Civil prison authorities cannot grant remission or a reduction in sentence duration. Any remission or pardon must be explicitly authorised by the competent military or federal authority, ensuring that discipline and statutory command remain intact. In practice, this means that even when a convict is lodged in a civil facility, sentence adjustments or pardons remain under strict military jurisdiction.
The legal framework also provides structured appeal and review mechanisms. Under Sections 130–132 of the Army Act, a court martial conviction may be appealed to higher military appellate authorities. In select cases, questions of law or jurisdiction may further be brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, providing additional oversight and a constitutional safeguard. These appellate pathways guarantee procedural fairness, allowing the convicted officer to challenge potential errors or irregularities while ensuring that military discipline is not compromised. The existence of this dual appellate framework shows Pakistan’s commitment to due process and rule of law, even within the unique confines of military justice.
Once a military convict is lodged in a civil prison, the Prisons Act, 1894 and relevant provincial prison rules govern administration, security, discipline and medical care. The civil authorities’ role is strictly custodial and administrative; they ensure humane treatment and compliance with prison standards, but they lack jurisdiction to alter sentences, grant remission or grant parole. This arrangement creates a legal interface between military authority and civil oversight, balancing institutional discipline with protections for human rights and procedural fairness.
The procedural sequence following a court martial – confirmation, warrant issuance, civil custody, structured remission and appeal – demonstrates the robustness of Pakistan’s military justice system. It ensures that convictions are enforceable, transparent and accountable, while also preserving constitutionally protected rights. Civil authorities’ role in executing custody does not undermine the statutory jurisdiction of military law; instead, it reinforces its lawful application in accordance with established legal procedures.
This framework serves as a model for countries seeking to maintain military discipline alongside civil legal oversight. By clearly delineating the roles of military authorities and civil prison officials, the system guarantees both institutional accountability and the protection of individual rights. The statutory precision provided by the Pakistan Army Act, Army Rules and Prisons Act ensures that the execution of a military sentence in a civil facility is legally sound, procedurally robust and transparent to oversight mechanisms.
Following the conclusion of a court martial, the legal path is well-defined: the sentence must be confirmed, a warrant of commitment is issued, the convict is delivered to civil custody if directed, civil authorities manage confinement without altering the sentence, and remission, pardon or appeal is only available through statutory military or federal authority.
Pakistan’s legal framework demonstrates that even complex, high-profile military convictions can be carried out transparently and lawfully, thereby preserving both public confidence and institutional integrity.
The writer is a practising advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan with 25 years of legal standing. He can be reached at: [email protected]
