The sons of imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan have stepped into the political spotlight, calling on global leaders to intervene in their father’s legal ordeal in Pakistan. In a rare joint appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored aired August 1, Sulaiman and Kasim Khan broke years of silence, voicing concern over what they described as appalling prison conditions and serious threats to their father’s life.
Their appearance has sparked strong reactions in Pakistan, where critics accuse the duo of leveraging Western platforms to challenge Pakistan’s judiciary and legal process while enjoying the privileges of life abroad.
A Tale of Two Realities
Imran Khan, currently serving a 14-year sentence on corruption charges, has denied all wrongdoing. His sons, who have spent their lives in the United Kingdom, now claim that their father is a victim of political persecution, alleging that he is being kept in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and is under threat from potential assassination attempts or poisoning.
During the interview, they described not having seen their father in nearly three years, attributing the absence to legal and bureaucratic barriers. They also said their father’s wife, Bushra Bibi, who is serving a seven-year sentence, is being held in similar isolation.
These assertions, delivered to an international audience, have reignited domestic debate over political privilege, selective outrage, and the optics of foreign intervention in national legal matters.
From “Absolutely Not” to ‘Absolutely, Please‘
What raised eyebrows even further was the sons’ direct appeal to United States political heavyweight Donald Trump and the British establishment to intervene. The plea stands in sharp contrast to Imran Khan’s own combative rhetoric during his tenure, when he rejected Western influence in Pakistan’s domestic affairs, famously coining the phrase “Absolutely Not” in response to US military requests.
Now, critics argue, the family appears to have reversed course.
The contrast has not gone unnoticed. Political observers note the shift from nationalistic defiance to emotional lobbying abroad as a significant turn in the narrative of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), sparking accusations of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Legal vs. Political Battlefield
The Pakistani government maintains that Imran Khan’s arrest and conviction followed due process, with full legal representation and appeal options provided throughout. Authorities insist that the judicial proceedings were transparent, constitutionally sound, and not subject to executive interference.
Legal analysts note that while political persecution remains a legitimate concern in many cases globally, the Pakistani courts that convicted Khan are the same institutions he once weaponized against political opponents during his time in office.
Legal experts note that while political targeting can exist in various contexts, Khan’s trial occurred within a legal framework that he himself had operated within while in power. The notion that rule of law only matters when politically convenient has become a key counterargument to the family’s claims.
Of British Accents and Pakistani Realities
Another sticking point lies in the identity and lifestyle of the messengers. Kasim and Sulaiman, British citizens who have spent their lives abroad, acknowledged during the interview that they had never lived under Pakistani law nor been involved in the country’s political processes. Yet they spoke passionately about democracy, human rights, and the political climate in Pakistan.
Many within Pakistan view their sudden public advocacy as an orchestrated Public Relations move, aimed at reviving their father’s dwindling political fortunes rather than a genuine call for justice.
Narrative vs. Nationhood
The timing of the media campaign, coinciding with heightened diplomatic sensitivity and domestic political realignment suggests a broader strategy to internationalize Imran Khan’s legal troubles. Observers note that by spotlighting emotional appeals on high-profile platforms, Khan’s family is attempting to reframe the narrative from legal accountability to political victimhood.
However, without verifiable evidence backing the claims of assassination plots or mistreatment, Pakistani officials have dismissed the assertions as speculative and irresponsible. There has been no confirmation from international human rights watchdogs regarding the alleged threats.
A Campaign of Contradictions
Despite the emotional weight of their appeals, the Khan sons have left several questions unanswered. Why now, after years of silence? Why reject Pakistan’s judicial outcomes while offering no legal counter-evidence? And why seek the same foreign pressure that their father so vehemently denounced?
The irony, critics argue, is hard to miss. From “foreign conspiracies” to foreign saviors, the Imran Khan narrative appears to have come full circle, with his sons now playing the leading roles in a script increasingly aimed at audiences outside Pakistan.
What Lies Ahead
Whether this high-profile appeal will translate into diplomatic pressure or shift public sentiment remains uncertain. Pakistan’s leadership continues to assert its commitment to the rule of law, constitutional process, and institutional independence values often contested but constitutionally enshrined.
As the televised plea gains traction online and among diaspora audiences, it has added another layer to the contested legacy of Imran Khan, one now shaped as much by external advocacy as by domestic legal proceedings.
Yet within Pakistan, a nation grappling with political volatility, economic strain, and institutional fatigue, the question remains: Can appeals broadcast from a London studio truly influence the course of justice in Islamabad? Or will this be remembered as another chapter in the long saga of a populist icon turned prisoner, where sentiment collided with sovereignty, and the law refused to blink?
