The debate around the alleged Imran Faiz nexus behind the May 9 violence has intensified, as questions continue to emerge about whether official evidence supports the political narrative being pushed by senior government figures. Despite repeated assertions by cabinet members, the military’s media wing has not explicitly confirmed any direct link between former prime minister Imran Khan and former ISI chief Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid in its public statements.
Over the past weeks, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Information Minister Attaullah Tarar have openly referred to an alleged Imran Faiz nexus while discussing the riots of May 9, 2023. These remarks have shaped a strong political narrative, suggesting coordinated actions between civilian and military figures to destabilize the state.
However, when pressed to clarify whether these claims were based on findings of a formal investigation — civil or military — government representatives have avoided giving direct answers.
Government Refers Queries to ISPR
In responses to journalists, the information minister repeatedly advised that questions regarding evidence should be directed to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR). He maintained that ministers had only commented on what was already stated in the ISPR’s press release.
Yet, a closer examination of the ISPR’s official statement announcing the conviction of Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid reveals a notable omission: it does not name Imran Khan, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), or explicitly link the former intelligence chief to the May 9 violence.
This discrepancy has become central to the growing debate surrounding the Imran Faiz nexus narrative.
What the ISPR Statement Actually Says
The ISPR press release detailed the conclusion of the Field General Court Martial against Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid. According to the statement, proceedings began on August 12, 2024, under the Pakistan Army Act and continued for over 15 months.
The former ISI chief was convicted on four charges:
- Engaging in political activities
- Violating the Official Secrets Act
- Misuse of authority and government resources
- Causing wrongful loss to individuals
He was sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment on December 11, 2025. The statement emphasized that due legal process was followed and that the accused retains the right to appeal.
Notably, none of these charges directly mention the May 9 riots or name any political leader.
The Line That Sparked Speculation
The final paragraph of the ISPR statement has been widely cited by politicians and commentators. It notes that the convict’s “involvement in fomenting vested political agitation and instability in cahoots with political elements” is being handled separately.
This line has been interpreted by many as an indirect reference to the May 9 violence and the alleged Imran Faiz nexus. However, the wording remains broad and non-specific, leaving room for interpretation rather than confirmation.
The ISPR did not identify which political elements were involved, nor did it clarify whether the May 9 incidents fall under this separate process.
No Explicit Confirmation Provided
When journalists pointed out that no official ISPR statement directly named an Imran Faiz nexus behind the riots, government spokesmen failed to provide any document or briefing that explicitly confirmed the claim.
This has raised concerns about whether the narrative being presented publicly is grounded in documented investigative findings or is an inference drawn from broader allegations of political interference.
Political Narrative vs Official Language
The gap between the government’s rhetoric and the military’s carefully worded statements has fueled uncertainty. While ministers continue to speak with confidence about an Imran Faiz nexus, the absence of explicit confirmation from ISPR has left analysts questioning the strength and source of the claims.
Legal experts argue that such distinctions matter, especially when allegations involve major political figures and events with far-reaching consequences for democracy and civil-military relations.
Why This Debate Matters
The May 9 violence marked one of the most turbulent moments in Pakistan’s recent political history. Determining responsibility through transparent, evidence-based processes is essential for accountability and public trust.
Without clear documentation linking individuals to the unrest, the continued use of the Imran Faiz nexus narrative risks deepening political polarization rather than resolving unanswered questions.
As investigations continue and appeals remain possible, observers will be watching closely to see whether official institutions provide clarity or whether the debate will remain shaped more by political interpretation than by verified findings.
