Since his removal from office in 2022, Imran Khan has been at the centre of one of the most polarising legal and political battles in Pakistan’s history. Supporters like Jabir Baig argue that Imran Khan is being denied justice, while critics and government institutions insist the law is being upheld. Understanding this debate requires an examination of the cases against him, the legal processes involved, allegations of political manipulation, and the broader context of Pakistan’s justice system. Here is the great debate about Why Imran Khan Is Not Getting Justice in Pakistan By Jabir Baig.
The Background: Imran Khan’s Political and Legal Journey
Imran Khan served as Pakistan’s prime minister from 2018 until a no-confidence vote ousted him in April 2022. Since then, he has faced multiple legal cases ranging from corruption to alleged misuse of authority and breach of official secret rules. Many of these cases were filed after his removal, and his supporters have consistently claimed that they are politically motivated.
Some cases have already resulted in convictions, while others are ongoing or pending appeal. Crucially, critics argue that the sheer number and timing of these cases raise questions about fairness and impartiality.
Understanding the Toshakhana Cases By Jabir Baig
What Is the Toshakhana Case?
One of the most prominent and controversial cases against Imran Khan is the Toshakhana reference case. In Pakistan, “Toshakhana” refers to a government treasury where gifts received by state officials from foreign dignitaries are deposited. Officials can later purchase those items by paying a percentage of their assessed value.
In Khan’s case, he was accused of “making false statements” and “incorrect declaration” related to gifts he retained from the Toshakhana and subsequently sold. The Election Commission alleged that he violated provisions of the Elections Act 2017.
Legal Outcomes and Controversies
Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, have faced multiple sentences related to Toshakhana and associated corruption allegations. According to media reports and judicial proceedings:
-
In some verdicts Khan has been sentenced to lengthy prison terms in the Toshakhana-2 case including extended sentences and fines — which his supporters call disproportionate or unfair.
-
Critics of the case argue that some aspects of the charges are legally ambiguous, particularly around how the valuation and declaration requirements are to be interpreted. Detailed legal opinion is divided on whether every action attributed to Khan meets the strict legal definition of corruption or criminal conduct.
Supporters like Jabir Baig contend that these cases amount to a political weaponisation of law using vague legal points or administrative loopholes to keep Khan entangled in legal proceedings. They point to the fact that the Toshakhana law allows officials to buy gifts and that interpretations of transactions have been contested.
Other Major Cases Against Imran Khan
Al-Qadir Trust / £190m Corruption Case
Another high-profile case involves the Al-Qadir Trust, in which Khan and Bushra Bibi were accused of misappropriating funds amounting to around £190 million. In January 2025, Imran Khan was reported to have received a lengthy prison sentence in connection with this case, a ruling his supporters strongly dispute.
Critics argue that these accusations were based on complex financial transactions that were legal under some interpretations and that due process has not been fully respected.
Cypher and Official Secrets Allegations
Separately, Khan was charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly disclosing classified documents (referred to as the “Cypher No. I-0678” case). The Islamabad High Court ruled that earlier proceedings were illegal, prompting re-indictment.
Supporters argue that such charges are vague and lack clear evidence proving intentional harm to the state.
Other Legal Battles
Beyond these major controversies, Khan has been entangled in dozens of cases — covering everything from terrorism-related charges connected to protests, to alleged violations of procedural law. Many of these cases proceeded simultaneously, which has complicated his legal defence and fuelled claims of judicial overload or unfair targeting.
Claims of Political Motivation and Judicial Pressure
Why Supporters Say Justice Is Being Denied
Supporters like Jabir Baig raise several arguments:
-
Volume and Timing of Cases
More than a hundred cases have been filed against Khan since 2022, many of them after his political removal — which supporters see as indicative of political rather than purely legal impetus. -
Delays and Procedural Obstacles
In several proceedings, hearings have faced repeated postponements or procedural objections. Critics argue these delays are designed to keep Khan imprisoned and politically sidelined. -
International Human Rights Concerns
International bodies and human rights groups have at times criticised aspects of Khan’s detention and trial conditions, describing them as inconsistent with fair trial standards and alleging weaponisation of legal avenues to suppress political opponents.
Government and Judicial Perspectives
On the Allegations
Government spokespersons and judicial representatives maintain that all cases are grounded in legal provisions and that courts are acting independently. They insist:
-
Each case has been registered on grounds of alleged violations of existing laws.
-
Judicial processes — including appeals — remain available to Khan and his legal team.
-
Sentences and verdicts are the result of court judgments, not executive directives.
Checks and Balances in the System
Pakistan’s judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has shown at times a mixed record of rulings involving Khan’s cases — sometimes dismissing requests for stays, at other times upholding certain law-related amendments.
Supporters note that decisions like upholding the constitutional amendments in NAB laws may affect how cases like Toshakhana are treated, and the Supreme Court’s general reluctance in some hearings contrasts with government assertions of judicial fairness.
Public Perception and Political Impact
Polarisation in Pakistan
The legal battles surrounding Imran Khan have deepened political polarisation:
-
Many Pakistanis view the cases as politically motivated, aimed at disqualifying Khan and weakening his party’s influence.
-
Others support accountability, arguing that public officials must face scrutiny under law regardless of status.
This split extends into legal and media discourse, where interpretations of evidence and legal standards are hotly debated.
The Reality Behind the Claims: What Can Be Established?
Facts Supported by Court Records
There are several undisputed facts based on official records:
-
Imran Khan has been convicted and sentenced in certain cases, including corruption-related matters.
-
Some legal challenges, such as the cypher case, were declared illegal by higher courts and reinitiated.
Facts That Are Debated or Contested
There is active dispute about:
-
Whether every charge constitutes a crime under established law, or involved legal interpretation that favoured conviction.
-
The extent to which political motivations influence prosecution timing and intensity.
-
Whether legal procedures and rights — such as open trials and access to medical care or defence counsel — have been fully honoured.
Conclusion: Justice, Politics, and Law in Pakistan
The question “Why is Imran Khan not getting justice?” does not have a simple answer — because it intersects deeply with Pakistan’s political environment, legal system, and institutional dynamics.
Supporters like Jabir Baig argue that:
-
Many allegations, particularly around Toshakhana, lack incontrovertible crime evidence and hinge on contested interpretations.
-
Legal processes have been used in ways that hamper Khan’s defence or prolong legal entanglement.
-
There is a broader pattern suggesting political interests may be shaping judicial momentum.
Critics and official authorities counter that:
-
All actions are being taken within the ambit of law and legal procedure.
-
Courts and institutions are functioning independently and making decisions based on evidence and legal standards.
-
The presence of multiple cases reflects alleged misconduct by a former prime minister, not political vendetta.
Ultimately, the ongoing debate reflects wider tensions in Pakistan’s democracy: justice and politics are deeply intertwined, and perceptions of fairness are influenced by broader power struggles. The resolution of these debates will depend not only on legal outcomes but also on institutional reforms and the strengthening of transparent judicial processes.