Islamabad: The political heatwave surrounding Pakistan’s incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan took a new turn this week after his sons based in the United Kingdom, Qasim and Suleman Khan, appeared on the British talk show Piers Morgan Uncensored. In their segment, the two criticised Khan’s imprisonment and what they described as the “conditions” he is being subjected to, reiterating the core narrative of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

The televised appearance was not an isolated gesture, but part of a broader lobbying and narrative-building campaign by PTI’s foreign chapters, which have intensified media and political engagements across the United Kingdom, United States, and parts of Europe since Khan’s ouster in 2022.

A Shift in Stance?

The appearance has triggered backlash in some quarters, not because of what was said, but because of what it represents. Critics point to Imran Khan’s own political posturing in recent years, where he famously rebuffed foreign influence with his “Absolutely Not” doctrine. Now, his family members are appealing to Western media and global opinion, which some observers view as a moral and political U-turn.

Foreign Media Blitz

The Piers Morgan Uncensored appearance has elevated an ongoing media strategy being deployed by PTI-linked diaspora groups. Prior to this, multiple sessions have been arranged and organized via PTI chapters based in the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, PTI’s international media cell appears to be running a calibrated campaign to cast Khan’s incarceration as an international human rights concern, rather than a legal matter of national jurisdiction.

PTI’s Lobbying Footprint in the West

Records from the United States Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) reveal that PTI-affiliated individuals and organisations have hired several lobbying firms in Washington D.C. since 2022. These firms were contracted to arrange meetings with members of Congress, brief think tanks, engage rights organisations like Amnesty International, and coordinate diaspora mobilisations. The lobbying contracts include agenda points ranging from “election transparency” to “judicial persecution” and “freedom of expression.”

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, PTI supporters have facilitated closed-door briefings with Lords and MPs, while also coordinating social media campaigns and community-level protests outside Pakistani High Commissions in London and Birmingham.

Media, Money, and Messaging

In a further expansion of this transnational campaign, an advertisement was published on 2 August 2025 by PTI USA in the US edition of The New York Times. The full-page ad, placed directly through the party’s US office, reportedly cost at least $180,000, marking a significant financial investment in shaping public perception abroad.

The move has reignited questions around political consistency, with critics calling it comic, preposterous, tragic, and desperate particularly in light of Khan’s earlier stance against US interference. Political commentators argue that seeking political salvation in the same country Khan once claimed he was liberating Pakistan from underscores the contradictions embedded in the party’s evolving rhetoric.

In response to the backlash, PTI Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram attempted to clarify the party’s position while speaking to The News, stating that he spoke to party members in the US who denied directly placing the ad, suggesting instead that it may have been funded by Pakistani diaspora, possibly a doctors’ organisation.

The online response has been swift and scathing, with netizens posting sharp-tongued tweets questioning the credibility, timing, and moral positioning of the party’s renewed Western engagement.

Blurring the Line Between Advocacy and Meddling?

What began as political activism by diaspora supporters now increasingly resembles a coordinated lobbying campaign that seeks to directly pressure Pakistan’s judiciary, military, and elected government. While lobbying in democratic societies is not inherently illegal, the moral friction emerges when domestic legal issues are internationalised for political mileage.

Some analysts have also raised questions about the role of foreign media platforms in selectively amplifying narratives that could feed geopolitical biases or undermine national institutions in developing countries like Pakistan.

Beyond Family Loyalty

While family members speaking up for incarcerated politicians is not uncommon, the context in which Qasim and Suleman Khan have entered the political discourse is not incidental. Their rare public statements have coincided with major international pressure campaigns by PTI’s lobbying outfits, raising questions about the intent, timing, and coordination of their involvement.

Despite living abroad throughout their father’s political journey, the brothers’ sudden media visibility adds weight to the perception that PTI’s narrative engineering is increasingly dependent on foreign platforms and diaspora optics.

As PTI continues to consolidate international attention on its legal battles at home, the boundaries between public advocacy and political lobbying grow increasingly thin. The timing and tone of the Khan sons’ appearance on British media is just the latest reminder that Pakistan’s political fault lines now stretch far beyond its borders, into committee rooms, news studios, and parliaments of Western capitals.

Whether this global push will yield results or further entrench the perception of foreign meddling in domestic legal matters remains to be seen.