TLDR:
• Imran Khan condemns detention conditions
• Calls constitutional amendment a betrayal
• Urges action on aide’s disappearance
RAWALPINDI (The Thursday Times) — Imran Khan, the incarcerated former Prime Minister of Pakistan, spoke from within Adiala Jail, condemning both the harsh conditions of his detention and the recent 26th Constitutional Amendment, which he believes undermines the very foundation of Pakistan’s democratic principles. Khan detailed his confinement, citing mistreatment and psychological strain, while affirming his commitment to continue his struggle for Pakistan’s “true freedom.”
Imran Khan decries harsh treatment in detention
Imran Khan’s recent statements from Adiala Jail paint a grim picture of his detention conditions. The former Prime Minister described being held in a confined cell under distressing conditions, with the cell’s electricity cut off for days and kept in darkness for extended periods. According to Khan, these conditions were intentionally imposed to break his resolve, but he affirmed his determination to continue his struggle for Pakistan’s “true freedom” despite the circumstances.
Khan accused authorities of subjecting him to treatment “worse than that of animals,” recounting instances where he was denied any external contact, including visits from family, doctors, or lawyers for several weeks. He called the detention practices “inhumane” and questioned the morality of such measures. His statements reflect a broader critique of the government’s actions, which he claims are intended to demoralise him and disrupt his political momentum.
Criticism of the 26th constitutional amendment
Khan did not hold back his criticism of the recent 26th Constitutional Amendment, which he views as a severe violation of Pakistan’s foundational principles. In his remarks, he expressed his belief that lawmakers who supported the amendment “shook the foundations of Pakistan’s constitution,” equating their actions with betrayal. Khan’s stance against the amendment appears rooted in his interpretation of democratic integrity, suggesting that such changes to the constitution destabilise the values set by Pakistan’s founders. His words indicate that he sees this amendment as a threat to the political framework and sovereignty of the state.
By linking the amendment to broader issues of governance, Khan’s critique underscores his view that the political system must uphold constitutional sanctity for Pakistan’s stability. His choice of words reflects a deep disappointment with the amendment, which he believes will have lasting impacts on the nation’s legal and democratic landscape.
Nawaz sharif’s motives questioned
In addition to his grievances over the amendment, Khan raised questions about former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s return to Pakistan. Khan’s comments suggested that Sharif’s political interests remain disconnected from Pakistan’s welfare, highlighting that Sharif’s wealth and assets are held abroad. He portrayed Sharif’s recent actions as being driven by a desire to “loot and leave,” a sentiment that reflects longstanding political rivalry between the two figures.
Khan’s remarks emphasised that Sharif’s influence within Pakistani politics may be limited, referring to him as a “twelfth man,” implying a diminished role. His critique draws attention to the financial and political complexities associated with Sharif’s legacy, suggesting that such figures cannot genuinely advocate for Pakistan’s welfare.
Concern over aide’s disappearance
Imran Khan expressed strong concern over the disappearance of his close aide, Intizar Panjotha, who was reportedly abducted in what Khan described as an act of “complete lawlessness.” Panjotha, a prominent figure within Khan’s political circle, has been missing for over three weeks. Khan attributed the incident to personal vendettas, linking it to the broader environment of hostility he feels surrounds him.
Khan’s concern reflects a frustration with Pakistan’s legal system, as he pointed to the judiciary’s silence on Panjotha’s abduction. His statements highlight a growing discontent with the rule of law in Pakistan, suggesting that incidents like Panjotha’s disappearance are indicative of a decline in the nation’s legal accountability.