Some of the captains at a press conference to announce a new marketing campaign “Let’s Keep Cricket Clean” in Mumbai, India on Feb. 2, 2011 (File photo. Credit Financial Times)
When former cricket captains from Australia, India, England, the West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka publicly express concern about the treatment of a jailed Pakistani leader, the intervention carries unusual weight. The recent letter signed by Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Clive Lloyd, David Gower, Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain and Arjuna Ranatunga calls attention to the health and prison conditions of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and urges that he receive appropriate medical care. These are individuals who once competed fiercely across national and political divides. Their unified voice reflects the degree to which Khan’s detention has become an international concern touching on due process, humane treatment and democratic credibility.
Recent reporting indicates that Khan was transferred under heavy security to a government hospital in Islamabad for eye treatment; his party described the move as “clandestine” and raised concerns about delayed care and limited access to physicians of his choice. His party has alleged that he suffered significant vision loss in one eye while in custody due to delayed intervention. Hospital officials, however, described him as “clinically stable” following the procedure.
The dispute over medical access underscores a broader problem in politically sensitive detentions: where transparency is limited, suspicion flourishes. In polarized political environments, confidence in institutions depends heavily on visible procedural safeguards.
More consequential are the documented concerns surrounding the legal proceedings themselves. On Sept. 11, 2024, Amnesty International called for Khan’s “immediate release from arbitrary detention.” After reviewing court judgments and consulting lawyers, Amnesty concluded that the legal system had been weaponized in ways that keep him detained and away from political activity.
Amnesty identified fair trial concerns including prison-based hearings not readily accessible to the public, limitations affecting legal preparation and questions relating to judicial independence. Under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a state party, every defendant is entitled to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. Amnesty concluded that aspects of these standards were not consistently met. It is also notable that several convictions against Khan have been suspended or overturned on appeal, yet he remains incarcerated under additional or revived charges.
Pakistani authorities have maintained that all proceedings are grounded in law and that no individual is above accountability. Critics, however, argue that the cumulative effect of overlapping cases and repeated remand orders creates the appearance that detention has become a continuing condition irrespective of appellate reversals. Whether one accepts that characterization or not, the pattern has deepened public polarization and intensified debate about institutional independence.
To understand the broader stakes, one must situate the present moment within Pakistan’s political history. Civilian governments have repeatedly operated within a complex balance involving the military establishment, the judiciary and shifting political coalitions. Pakistan has experienced direct military rule, judicial validation of extra-constitutional interventions and periods of civilian assertion followed by institutional retrenchment. Against this backdrop, high-profile prosecutions of political leaders inevitably carry systemic implications beyond individual culpability.
What distinguishes the current situation is the relative quiet of Washington. The U.S. and Pakistan share a long, strategically driven relationship shaped by Cold War alignments, the Soviet–Afghan war, post-9/11 counter-terrorism cooperation and, more recently, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. For decades, security cooperation—including intelligence sharing and regional stabilization efforts—has anchored bilateral ties. Even during periods of tension, including disputes over drone strikes, militancy and Afghanistan policy, strategic necessity often tempered public criticism.
Historically, U.S. democracy promotion has been uneven when applied to strategically significant states. During the Cold War, military rulers in Pakistan received substantial support because of geopolitical alignments. After 9/11, countert-errorism imperatives again took precedence over sustained institutional reform. Today, Pakistan’s economic fragility—including dependence on International Monetary Fund stabilization and external financial support—intersects with U.S. and Western financial influence, yet public commentary from Washington on the integrity of Pakistan’s judicial processes has been measured.
This restraint may reflect diplomatic caution rather than indifference. U.S. officials are acutely aware of Pakistan’s nuclear status, its proximity to Afghanistan, its rivalry with India and its growing economic engagement with China. But the broader question remains: can democratic norms be credibly promoted when they appear selectively emphasized? When fair trial standards are vigorously defended in adversarial states yet discussed quietly in strategically relevant partners, the universality of those norms comes under strain.
The pattern alleged by critics of Khan’s detention—successive filings, continued remand and procedural entanglement—mirrors trends observable in multiple jurisdictions worldwide, where legal processes are used to constrain political opponents without overtly dismantling constitutional frameworks. Such strategies are more subtle than coups or emergency decrees. They operate through law rather than outside it, making transparency and judicial independence even more critical.
(Faisal Kutty, J.D., LL.M. is a lawyer, law professor and regular contributor to The Toronto Star and Newsweek. He is affiliate faculty at the Rutgers University Center for Security, Race and Rights and Associate Professor of Law Emeritus at Valparaiso University. You can follow him on X @faisalkutty).
Courtesy: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs