Imran Khan for Justice

Scope of Litigation

Following his removal from office, Imran Khan has been named in over 200 legal cases across Pakistan.
To date, five cases have been fully processed to judgment:

1. Toshakhana Case I
2. Illegal Marriage Case
3. Cypher Case
4. Al-Qadir Trust Case
5. Toshakhana Case II

A notable contextual fact is that Imran Khan had not faced criminal prosecution at any point during his public life prior to his removal as Prime Minister, despite decades of political activity. The concentration of cases after his ouster has therefore drawn scrutiny from legal observers.

Timing and Case Progression

Analysts identify two distinct phases in how the cases progressed.

Pre-Election Phase

The first set of cases was adjudicated ahead of national elections, during a period when Imran Khan remained politically active and electorally influential. These cases moved at a pace that legal commentators described as exceptionally expedited relative to standard criminal proceedings in Pakistan.

Despite convictions and adverse findings, public support for Khan did not materially decline, as reflected in electoral outcomes and polling trends.

Post-Election Phase

After elections, the legal focus shifted from verdicts to custodial continuity.

During this phase:

• Bail petitions were repeatedly delayed or rejected
• Appeal hearings were postponed
• Interim relief was rarely granted, even where sentences were appealable

Legal analysts note that under Pakistani jurisprudence, bail is the rule and incarceration the exception, particularly where:

• The accused is not a flight risk
• Evidence is documentary rather than violent in nature
• Appeals raise substantial legal questions

In Imran Khan’s cases, courts frequently declined bail without detailed engagement with these standards, a departure from established precedent.

Judicial Conduct and Trial Conditions

Another significant area of concern relates to how trials were conducted.

After initial proceedings, most trials were shifted to jail premises, limiting:

• Public access
• Media observation
• Independent legal scrutiny

Defense counsel raised objections regarding:

• Restricted cross-examination of prosecution witnesses
• Selective acceptance of evidence
• Compressed trial timelines inconsistent with the complexity of charges

International legal standards emphasize transparency and public scrutiny as safeguards of fair trial rights. Critics argue that jail-based trials, particularly when used repeatedly, reduce institutional accountability and increase perceptions of bias.

Judgments and Legal Reasoning

Across multiple cases, legal analysts have pointed to inconsistencies and contradictions within judgments.

Key issues include:

• Criminalization of administrative actions traditionally treated as civil or regulatory matters
• Retrospective application or reinterpretation of rules, contrary to the principle that criminal liability must be clearly defined at the time of the act
• Limited analysis of mens rea (criminal intent)
• Selective attribution of liability to individuals while excluding institutions involved in decision-making

In several judgments, courts accepted prosecution narratives without addressing countervailing institutional evidence, raising questions about evidentiary balance.

Toshakhana Cases and Institutional Accountability

Two of the five concluded cases relate to Toshakhana, Pakistan’s official repository for state gifts.

Under long-standing rules, public officeholders could retain gifts by paying 15 percent of the assessed value. During Imran Khan’s tenure, this percentage was increased to 50 percent through official notification.

After his removal, prosecutors alleged that certain gifts—particularly luxury watches—had been undervalued.

In Toshakhana Case II, the prosecution relied on a valuation witness who was a part-time salesman and who assessed the watch based solely on photographs, without physical inspection.

The defense argued that the original valuation and approval process involved:

• Toshakhana officials
• The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR)
• The Prime Minister’s Office

Despite this, no official from these institutions was charged or investigated.

Legal scholars argue that where alleged wrongdoing arises from an official valuation process, institutional responsibility must be examined. The absence of such scrutiny has been cited as a key weakness in the prosecution’s theory.

Bail Denials and Appeal Delays

One of the most consequential aspects of the legal process has been the consistent denial or delay of bail.

In multiple cases:

• Bail applications were heard after significant delays
• Interim relief was denied without detailed reasoning
• Appeals remained pending while sentences were enforced

From a comparative legal perspective, such practices are unusual in non-violent, document-based cases, especially involving former heads of government.

Legal analysts argue that these decisions effectively transformed pre-appeal detention into punitive incarceration, undermining the presumption of innocence during appeal.

Illegal Marriage Case: Jurisprudential Anomaly

The prosecution of Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in an illegal marriage case has been described by legal scholars as without precedent in Pakistan’s judicial history or in Islamic jurisprudence.

Critics note:

• The absence of comparable prior cases
• The reliance on private testimony to criminalize a marital relationship
• The limited engagement with established Islamic legal principles governing marriage

International observers have questioned the necessity and proportionality of such a prosecution.

Detention Conditions

In addition to legal proceedings, Imran Khan has experienced extended periods of solitary confinement.

International human rights bodies, including UN-affiliated experts, have repeatedly cautioned that prolonged solitary confinement may constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Supporters argue that isolation, combined with legal uncertainty and delayed appeals, exerts psychological pressure beyond lawful detention objectives.

Conclusion

From an international legal perspective, the controversy surrounding Imran Khan’s cases does not rest solely on guilt or innocence. Rather, it centers on due process, judicial consistency, and equal application of the law.

The cumulative pattern—rapid trials, restricted proceedings, contradictory judgments, and sustained denial of bail—has raised serious questions among legal observers about selective accountability and judicial independence in Pakistan.

Whether these proceedings will ultimately be viewed as legitimate enforcement of the law or as an erosion of legal norms will depend not on political narratives, but on how higher courts address appeals, bail, and institutional accountability in the months ahead.