ISLAMABAD (The Thursday Times) — Senior establishment sources have categorically rejected claims that any “deal” was ever offered to former prime minister Imran Khan, stating that his legal recourse lies strictly in the courts through evidence and constitutional process, not political bargaining or pressure tactics.
According to officials familiar with the matter, persistent narratives around a supposed understanding reached in November 2024 are “deliberately manufactured confusion” aimed at reshaping public perception. The sources insist that no backchannel arrangement, relief package or conditional release framework was placed before the PTI leadership.
Instead, they maintain that only one clear message was conveyed at the time: any instance of political violence, including an attempted forced entry or large-scale disruption in Islamabad, would be dealt with strictly under the law. However, they say that PTI was informed it could stage a peaceful political protest in Sangjani or another designated area, subject to standard legal and administrative conditions.
“There was no deal, no negotiation, and no political concession,” a source said, adding that the choice between peaceful protest and confrontation was entirely political and rested with PTI’s leadership.
Establishment officials further argue that the armed forces have no institutional interest in political engineering or mediating party disputes. They emphasise that the military’s constitutional relationship is with the federal government of the day, not with individual political actors. Political dialogue, negotiations and settlements, they say, fall exclusively within the domain of political parties and civilian institutions.
Sources also stress that repeated attempts to frame routine law-and-order communication as “midwifing” of political outcomes reflect a broader pattern of dragging the military into partisan narratives. “The army wants nothing to do with politics,” one official stated, adding that conflating legal enforcement with political bargaining undermines institutional clarity.
The position, as outlined by these sources, is that any relief for Imran Khan must emerge from judicial proceedings based on evidence and legal facts rather than street mobilisation or pressure campaigns. In their view, the path forward remains constitutional and judicial, not negotiated behind closed doors.∎
