His tenure as ISI Chief should have been extended cause this is what IK wanted. But this COAS decided to over step his authority and ordered ISI Chief to Peshawar Corps. This COAS should know that ISI Chief selection and appointment is the authority of the sitting PM as per the constitution. But this COAS has time and time again showed through his actions that he is above the law. He has continually interfered in the politics of this country by directly meeting politicians, and meeting US Diplomatic Officials directly bypassing the Government. Why the Corps commanders don't take his to task for his actions is itself very shameful, and just shows the disdain the Military has for Civilian Government.
First of all, as everyone on this forum knows, I am
not a fan of the COAS. I believe his strategy has failed and I also intrinsically do not like anyone who seeks an extension (personal power vs. what's good for the institution and country).
But your analysis has several flaws:
1.) The ISI has no constitutional role, jurisdiction, act, ordinance, etc. It is literally operating, even existing, outside any clear laws.
2.) As an extension of the above, there are no written laws in the Constitution or anywhere else (many legal experts have checked all possible places where such rules could be found over the past month) that define who and how a new DG is appointed, nor the qualifications or affiliation of the DG (for example, can he/she be a civilian or not).
3.) Finally, many things are based on 'convention' and not laws --- this is a horrible and dangerous approach in my opinion, but the DG selection process seems to fall into this category. the convention has typically been that GHQ sends a list of names (or a single name, when they're feeling more frisky) and the PM approves it / selects one.
4.) The Army position is that while the selection of the new DG is the prerogative of the PM, the transfer within the army of any serving DG to his next post is the prerogative of the relevant military authority, like the MS Branch or whatever.
5.) The entire reason this mess exists is because the ISI has no clear legal standing. Israel, the UK, the US, India, etc., all have civilian-led internal and external intelligence agencies and military-led MIs. We have a really weird system of useless, dangerous overlap. It needs URGENT REFORM.
6.) Another important question is why the Army Chief specifically has such a great role over the ISI. It is NOT the Army Chief's personal spy agency, nor is it an Army organ. If the military has 'taken over' it (which it has), it should at least report to the CJSC --- this would be a good move to empower the CJSC position, which is thus far some kind of useless ceremonial role (again --- too much monopolization of power by the COAS position).
My 2c.