The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that the imprisonment and prosecution of PTI founder Imran Khan in the first Toshakhana case and the cipher case are “without legal basis”. The report by the world body comes mere days after the National Assembly passed a resolution against a motion adopted in the US House of Representatives calling into question the credibility of the Feb 8 elections in Pakistan and demanding a “full independent investigation”.
The UN working group states that the cases against Khan are politically motivated to deny him the chance to compete in the political arena. It points out several legal inconsistencies and irregularities during the multiple court proceedings against the PTI found and says the legal woes of the PTI founder are part of a “much larger campaign of repression”. The UN group maintains that it cannot but “observe the coincidence in the timing” of Khan’s four convictions prior to general polls. The report also states that the “appropriate remedy” will be the immediate release of the former premier. The US State Department has, however, in a recent statement declared that Khan’s detention is an “internal matter” of Pakistan.
As a civilised democracy, the state must ensure the provision of the right to a fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary must remain independent as it is a vital pillar of a democratic state and conduct trials free from undue influence. The apex court has recently corrected a historic wrong in the ZA Bhutto reference, besides throwing out multiple convictions plaguing former premier Nawaz Sharif. Khan has also been a victim of marathon trials and his many convictions are being questioned today. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated. The judges of the future should not have to revisit the wrongs committed today and the incumbents need to play their part to strengthen the rule of law and democracy in Pakistan.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ