By Syed Shamim AKhtar
The recent sentencing of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi to seventeen years in prison in the Toshakhana case has sent shockwaves through Pakistan’s political landscape. Alongside the custodial sentence, the couple faces a fine of 35 million rupees, with an additional six months’ imprisonment looming should the fine remain unpaid. The verdict, delivered by a special judge of Central Islamabad at Adiala Central Jail in Rawalpindi, spans 59 pages and concludes that the prosecution successfully proved the charges, while the accused failed to provide convincing evidence in their defence. Witness testimonies were deemed credible, and the court meticulously examined the sequence of events before delivering its ruling.
Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar clarified that this sentence will follow the completion of a prior 190-million-pound sentence, with the new term commencing after the 14-year sentence concludes. Tarar explained that the gifts at the heart of the case had been deliberately undervalued to defraud the state, representing a significant financial loss. According to the government, both Khan and Bushra Bibi retained gifts for personal benefit, denying the treasury revenue rightly due to the state. From a legal standpoint, the judgment appears thorough, reflecting careful documentation of evidence and witness accounts, underscoring the principle that the law is meant to be applied irrespective of the stature of the accused.
Yet, as is often the case in Pakistan, legal proceedings cannot be divorced from political perception. At a national conference convened under the banner of the Protection of the Constitution Movement, PTI leaders immediately framed the ruling as politically motivated. Barrister Salman Akram Raja expressed shock at the timing of the verdict and called on the public to recognize and resist what he described as systemic oppression. Former National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser warned that street protests were now inevitable, signaling a continuation of PTI’s struggle for what it perceives as justice. Alima Khan, in a video statement, insisted that the government would not silence them, suggesting that the sentences were delivered according to a pre-scripted political agenda rather than judicial impartiality.
This episode underlines a troubling trend in Pakistan’s political culture: judicial proceedings are increasingly interpreted through the lens of partisan politics. Even when courts follow due process, the verdicts are frequently framed by political actors as instruments of government strategy rather than outcomes of the legal system. In a country where trust in institutions is fragile, such narratives carry considerable weight, deepening societal divisions and eroding confidence in the judiciary’s independence. The perception of politicized justice is as damaging as the reality of corruption, because it diminishes public faith in the impartiality of governance and the rule of law.
History provides sobering context. For decades, successive governments in Pakistan—from the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) to the Pakistan Peoples Party, and more recently PTI itself—have deployed legal mechanisms to target political opponents. Courts have been invoked to present rivals as corrupt, incompetent, or even treasonous, often coinciding with broader campaigns to marginalize dissenting voices. Rarely has any administration resisted the temptation to weaponize the judicial system for partisan gain, prioritizing political survival over national interest. This pattern has entrenched cynicism within the electorate and created a political environment in which legal proceedings are almost inevitably interpreted as a reflection of power rather than principle.
The Toshakhana verdict thus represents more than a legal conclusion; it is a litmus test for the maturity of Pakistan’s political culture. Governments are elected not to settle scores with opponents but to address pressing public concerns: governance, economic stability, security, and the welfare of citizens. The misuse of state institutions for political ends undermines this fundamental contract between the electorate and those in power. When courts, regulatory bodies, or prosecutorial agencies are perceived as tools of partisan advantage, the social legitimacy of the entire political system is called into question.
The consequences of maintaining such a status quo are stark. Public disenchantment with democratic institutions deepens when the machinery of the state is seen to serve political elites rather than the populace. In a country already grappling with economic hardship, security challenges, and governance deficits, the instrumentalization of justice for political purposes risks opening the door to alternative, non-democratic solutions. Populations disillusioned with elected representatives may begin to look for leaders or systems that promise efficiency and decisive action, irrespective of legality or fairness. History has shown that political systems grounded in personal or partisan advantage rarely deliver enduring stability; they corrode trust and sow the seeds of long-term instability.
(The writer has diverse in knowledge and has a good omen in politics, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
