Prabhu Dayal
New Delhi, Dec 2 (UNI) Rumours of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s death in jail have been officially denied by Pakistani authorities and have primarily generated a reaction of intense unrest and demands for transparency among his supporters in Pakistan, with limited official international government response.
Imran Khan is currently in jail serving a 14-year sentence on corruption charges related to the Al-Qadir Trust case, a charge he claims is politically motivated.
He has been incarcerated since August 2023 and faces numerous other legal cases. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) had directed on 24 March 2025 that Imran Khan be allowed bi-weekly access for meetings with his family, lawyers, and friends.
The court had directed that his family and lawyers could visit him on Tuesdays and friends on Thursdays. The Court had issued a subsequent directive on 24 October 2025, ordering Adiala Jail authorities to fully implement the approved meeting schedule.
However, recent reports indicate that despite these clear court orders, Khan’s family members, including his sisters and lawyers, have been repeatedly denied access to meet him.
The denial of access is ongoing, with his family and party members staging protests outside the jail. Concerns have been raised by his party (PTI) about his well-being and location within the jail due to the lack of access and transparency.
Imran Khan’s sisters, Aleema Khan, Noreen Niazi and Uzma Khan, have been outspoken critics of the authorities’ treatment of Imran Khan. They state they have been denied visits for several weeks despite court orders, keeping the family in the dark about his condition.
They reported being “brutally assaulted” by police while peacefully protesting and demanding to meet him outside Adiala Jail. While they have used strong language about the general treatment, Aleema Khan has also been quoted as saying, “My brother’s life is not in danger,” suggesting a belief that public and international attention provides a level of protection, even as access is denied.
Imran’s ex-wife Jemima Goldsmith has also used social media to raise the alarm, emphasizing that while she may disagree with him politically, the situation concerns human rights and her children’s father. She has pointed out that all visits have been stopped and weekly calls to their sons have been cut off.
She alleged that Pakistani authorities have threatened to arrest her sons if they visit the country to see their father. Thus, the family’s primary fear stems from the total lack of communication and access, which they believe is an intentional strategy by authorities to conceal his well-being and is a clear violation of his basic human rights.
Imran Khan’s legal cases are indicative of deep divisions in Pakistani politics because they are widely seen as politically motivated tools used by entrenched elites and the powerful military establishment to sideline a popular opponent.
This perception has intensified the struggle between Khan’s populist movement and the state’s traditional power structures, resulting in extreme polarization and public unrest.
Legal experts and human rights activists argue that the law is used as an instrument of political revenge in Pakistan. The timing of numerous cases and convictions against Khan, often coming just before key political events like elections, is seen by his supporters as a clear attempt to bar him from contesting and participating in the political process.
Khan, once reportedly on good terms with the military, had a public falling out with the army leadership. His subsequent anti-establishment rhetoric and accusations that the military conspired to oust him have led to an unprecedented, open confrontation between a civilian leader and the powerful armed forces.
Despite his imprisonment and a severe crackdown on his party, Khan retains a significant grassroots following, particularly among the youth and urban middle class, who view him as a “selfless patriot” fighting a corrupt system.
His legal battles have reinforced his image as a political martyr, galvanizing massive street power and protests, further deepening the divide between his loyal base and the government. The crisis has exposed fissures within state institutions, including the judiciary.
Accusations of judicial bias and military interference in court cases have further eroded public trust and highlighted the struggle for power between the different pillars of the state, rather than a focus on policy matters.
The current situation is also a reflection of a long-standing pattern where successive governments target their predecessors with corruption charges.
Ultimately, the cases are not just about legal technicalities but are a central front in a larger power struggle that has intensified political polarization and brought the country to a critical juncture.
Relations between Khan and General Asim Munir are widely reported as highly strained and defined by a deep personal and political animosity.
Khan has repeatedly and publicly accused General Munir of being the “most oppressive dictator” in the country’s history and of orchestrating a vindictive political crackdown, his numerous arrests, and the mistreatment of him and his wife in custody.
Khan has explicitly stated that he will not engage in dialogue with the current government or the military establishment, asserting that all power lies with General Munir.
General Munir was recently elevated to the rank of Field Marshal and granted extensive new powers, including control over all three defence forces and legal protections, a move seen by critics as consolidating his control and further sidelining Khan’s political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Amid recent rumours about Khan’s health and safety in jail, he has instructed his party to hold General Munir accountable if anything happens to him, highlighting the extreme level of distrust.
The relationship is characterized by ongoing political and legal battles, with no signs of reconciliation. Summing up, Imran Khan’s legal cases are indicative of deep divisions in Pakistani politics because they are widely seen as politically motivated tools used by entrenched elites and the powerful military establishment to sideline a popular opponent.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
(In arrangement with The Statesman.)
