A look at the legal procedure that is used to select the head of the army Notification of retirement is issued by the Ministry of Defense prior to appointment as per the previous selection process for the head of the army.
ISLAMABAD:
These days, Pakistani politics are centred on the appointment of the next chief of army staff (COAS), and the announcement of this appointment by the government is anticipated to take place the following week.
The method that is used to select the head of the army is likewise the subject of ongoing discussion.
The PML-N was responsible for appointing General Qamar Javed Bajwa as the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) during its previous stint in power, as detailed in the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 2019 regarding the army chief extension case.
In accordance with Rule 12 of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, the Ministry of Defense sent a brief to the Prime Minister on November 15, 2016, requesting his approval for General Raheel Sharif’s resignation from his position as Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) on November 29, 2016.
It is unclear at this time whether or not the Ministry of Defense would send the summary of the upcoming retirement of the present Army Chief, as was done in 2016.
In a meeting with the president on November 26, 2016, the Prime Minister recommended that Article 243(4)(b) of the Constitution be used to install General Qamar as the Chief of Army Staff.
On the same day, the president decided to follow the recommendation.
The Ministry of Defense issued a notification on November 26, 2016, that General Bajwa had been promoted to the rank of general, and that he had also been appointed as the army chief effective the same day.
The decision of the Supreme Court stated that Regulation 262-A [of the Army Regulations] applies to officers who were commissioned after 1970, which includes the current Chief of Army Staff, and that Regulation 262-C applies to officers who were commissioned after 1988. There is no specified retirement age for officers holding the rank of general in Regulation 262-A, which is the regulation that applies to General Bajwa.
In the verdict, it was pointed out that according to the custom of the institution, a general would have to retire after serving for a total of three years.
“Although an institutional practise cannot be a valid substitute for the law that is required to be made under clause (3) of Article 243, the said practise can be enforced in the absence of such law in order to remove uncertainty as to the tenure of a General and to make the constitutional post of COAS functional. This is despite the fact that an institutional practise cannot be a valid substitute for the law that is required to be made under clause (3) of Article 243. However, in the first instance, the issue should be permitted to be governed by law, which should be enacted by the legislature in accordance with the mandates of the Constitution,” the document concluded.
An official stated to The Express Tribune that there was no such plan regarding the government’s consideration about amending the Army Act because the president could easily block any such ordinance before November 27. This statement was made in reference to the government’s consideration about amending the Army Act.
