Opinion | Imran Khan and the Politics of Persecution: Pakistan’s Treatment of Its Former Prime Minister

India and Pakistan emerged from the same historical partition but developed markedly different political trajectories. While India has faced serious democratic and institutional controversies of its own, Pakistan has experienced repeated military interventions and prolonged struggles between civilian governments and the military establishment. The treatment of Imran Khan is therefore another chapter in that larger story.

Pakistan has never had a simple relationship with political power. Its history is marked by military interventions, political instability, judicial controversies and repeated tensions between elected governments and the country’s powerful military establishment. But the treatment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan since his removal from office has raised a particularly serious question: where does legitimate accountability end and political persecution begin?

Imran Khan is not above the law. Like any other political leader, he can be investigated, prosecuted and convicted if a court establishes criminal responsibility. The concern, however, is whether the legal system has been used against him in a manner consistent with due process, political rights and basic human dignity. That concern is no longer being raised only by Khan’s supporters. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded in 2024 that Khan’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary and violated several provisions of international human-rights law. It called on Pakistan to take steps to remedy his situation and bring it into conformity with international standards.

Imran Khan served as Pakistan’s prime minister from 2018 until April 2022, when his government was removed through a parliamentary vote of no confidence. His relationship with Pakistan’s powerful military establishment subsequently deteriorated sharply. Khan accused the establishment of attempting to remove him politically, while Pakistani authorities and the military rejected such allegations. The political confrontation soon moved from parliament and political rallies into courtrooms and prisons. Khan was arrested in May 2023, an event that triggered nationwide protests and serious violence. He was arrested again in August 2023 following his conviction in the Toshakhana case and has remained in detention through a succession of legal proceedings.

Over the following years, several cases were brought against him, ranging from corruption allegations to cases involving state secrets and his marriage to Bushra Bibi. Some convictions have been overturned, suspended or otherwise challenged, while other convictions have remained in force. Reuters reported in January 2025 that Khan was sentenced to 14 years in prison in a major corruption case, while also noting that he denied the allegations and described the cases as politically motivated. The sheer number and timing of these proceedings have consequently become part of the controversy.

The controversy has also extended beyond the courtrooms to Khan’s treatment inside prison.

Amnesty International reported in August 2026 that Khan had been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement and had faced restrictions on access to family members, lawyers and medical care. The organisation said that he had reportedly been unable to meet his family for more than eight months and that his eyesight had significantly deteriorated. These are serious allegations. Solitary confinement is particularly sensitive under international human-rights standards. Amnesty notes that isolation involving 22 hours or more per day without meaningful human contact can constitute solitary confinement, and prolonged or inappropriate use can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Pakistan’s authorities have rejected allegations of mistreatment and have maintained that Khan is receiving the treatment and facilities available to prisoners under the law. This is precisely why independent access to prisoners matters. When the government and the prisoner’s family give completely different accounts, transparency becomes essential.

The broader issue is the relationship between law and politics. A government has every right to prosecute a former prime minister if there is credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But the prosecution must be conducted through a process that is transparent, impartial and consistent with due process.

Amnesty International examined documents from Khan’s various cases and spoke with lawyers involved in the proceedings. In 2024, it concluded that there had been several fair-trial violations and described the legal system as having been used to keep Khan detained and away from political activity. That is an assessment made by an international human-rights organisation, not an established fact that every Pakistani institution accepts. The Pakistani government has consistently rejected the allegation that Khan’s imprisonment is simply political persecution.

The distinction is important. The proper question is not whether Imran Khan is politically popular or unpopular. It is whether the legal process applied to him meets the standards that should apply to any political opponent.

The Imran Khan episode also needs to be understood within Pakistan’s longer political history. Pakistan has repeatedly experienced confrontations between civilian governments and the military establishment. Political leaders have been removed, imprisoned or pushed out of political life at different points in the country’s history. Khan’s case has revived those questions. If political opponents can be kept away from political life through questionable legal procedures, the damage does not end with one politician. It affects public confidence in courts, elections and democratic institutions. A democracy cannot depend solely on who wins an election. It also depends on how the state treats those who lose power.

This is particularly important in Khan’s case because his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), faced severe restrictions in the period surrounding the 2024 general election. Amnesty International has described the restrictions imposed on Khan and his party as part of a broader pattern of political repression.

Imran Khan’s political record can and should be debated. His government can be criticised. His policies can be examined. Criminal allegations against him can be investigated. But none of that removes his basic rights as a prisoner or his rights as a political citizen.

The solution is therefore not political propaganda from either side. It is transparency. Independent medical examinations, meaningful access to lawyers and family, open judicial proceedings and adherence to international human-rights standards would allow the facts to speak for themselves. Because ultimately, the question is bigger than Imran Khan. It is about whether Pakistan’s institutions are strong enough to protect the rights of a political opponent when he becomes inconvenient to those in power.

A democracy is not truly tested when everyone agrees with the government. It is tested by how the state treats the person who stands against it.

aamiriqbal9103@gmail.com