The strictness of the restrictions imposed during the trials of Imran Jan and his wife Bushra Bibi was criticized, according to El País, particularly because of the strict military surveillance and the absence of family and public at the hearings. This situation has raised questions about the transparency of the proceedings and the impartiality of the Islamabad court responsible for imposing the recent seventeen-year prison sentence on the couple for illicit appropriation of official jewelry, the central point of the case known as Toshakhana-2.
El País media stated that the court found the former Pakistani Prime Minister and Bushra Bibi responsible for the illegal appropriation of jewelry worth 760,000 euros, official gifts from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Reports indicate that Pakistani law requires that these types of donations be passed on to the state treasury unless the beneficiary official pays a statutory amount to the authorities. The couple handed over 25,000 euros to the official authorities, a sum that the prosecutor’s office considers insufficient and that, according to El País, does not comply with the prescribed procedures.
The trial took place under exceptional security conditions, which, as El País reported, drew criticism from the opposition and independent organizations due to restrictions on public access and compliance with procedural safeguards. The Pakistan Justice Movement, a political group led by Imran Jan, condemned the court decision by X, saying it was “a new decision by a puppet court.” In addition, the party accused Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s government of using the justice system as a tool to prevent Khan’s return to politics and weaken the parliamentary opposition.
El País stressed that this opposition position is part of a sustained strategy to denounce alleged abuses by the executive in the judicial sector. Voices against the government assume that the accumulation of punishments against Jan is a reaction to the plan to isolate him politically. On the contrary, the government argues that judicial decisions comply with legality and due process and defends the legitimacy of the rulings.
In addition to the recent conviction in the Toshakhana-2 case, Imran Jan has other punishments. According to El País, the former prime minister was sentenced to ten years in prison for disclosing official secrets, to fourteen years in the first Toshakhana case, to seven years for violating Islamic marriage law and to another fourteen years in connection with the Al Qadir case, in which the Pakistan National Crime Agency accused him of fraud. In total, Jan faces four sentences that reflect the scale of the legal and political confrontation the country is experiencing.
The institutional crisis in Pakistan worsened after the dismissal of Imran Jan by parliamentary motion in 2022, a context in which, according to El País, Jan’s entourage interpreted the large number of court cases as a maneuver to exclude him from political life and curb the growth of the opposition. Tensions between the Sharif and Jan families have led to mutual accusations of manipulation, increased societal distrust of the justice system and increased perceptions of state interference in the administration of justice.
The seriousness of the scenario is also evident in the simultaneous protests and marches by Jan’s supporters and opponents, El País reported. Police operations and security measures surrounding court proceedings determine the pace of public life in large cities.
The Toshakhana-2 case not only calls into question the legality of the appropriation of official gifts, but also highlights the management of public resources and the accountability of officials. According to El País, the incident demonstrated the armed forces’ frequent intervention in the institutional balance and reinforced the centrality of the justice system in the power struggle. The repetition of the sentences against Imran Jan, seen by some analysts and opposition figures as a method of institutional control by the government, shows the difficulties in ensuring a level playing field for all political actors.
The imposition of strict restrictions during the trials, as well as the impression of opacity and constant pressure on opposition leaders, have intensified the confrontation and further fragmented the national panorama. According to an analysis by El País, the judicial system itself and its members remain at the center of the political conflict, while the figure of Imran Jan, identified in the past with reforms and transparency, is embroiled in controversies surrounding the independence of the state and the objectivity of the judicial authorities.
About The Author
