Important questions were raised about the plight and alleged human rights violations in Pakistan, demanding that the situation be linked to trade and aid
Concerns about Pakistan’s broader democratic path and the role of the army are also prominent
Dr. Akhtar Gulfam, Editor-in-Chief, Daily Dawn, Director News Dawn TV
London: Senior British politicians have raised important questions in the Darul Umar, the upper house of the country’s parliament, about the plight of former Pakistani Prime Minister and founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan and the alleged human rights violations in Pakistan, and have demanded that this situation be addressed in trade and British aid.
Lord Goldsmith, a member of Darul Umar, said in the meeting of the house that ‘We know that Imran Khan is not being given access to lawyers, family and his two sons, who are my nephews. Even access to doctors is not being given.
‘We know that Imran Khan has spent a lot of time in solitary confinement in prison and his health is deteriorating rapidly. It is time for the UK to review its aid to Pakistan until it meets its commitments to an independent judiciary and the rule of law.’
The imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his deteriorating health have come under constant scrutiny in the UK Parliament.
Peers across party lines urged the Labour government to step up diplomatic relations with Islamabad and consider linking aid and trade to human rights standards.
The issue was raised during oral questions led by Labour peer Baroness Alexander for Clevedon, who asked about discussions with the Pakistani government regarding Imran’s detention.
Responding on behalf of the Foreign Office, Baroness Chapman, Minister of State for Darlington, reiterated that while Pakistan’s judicial process is a matter for its own authorities, the UK has consistently expressed concerns about fundamental rights.
“While Pakistan’s judicial process is of course a Pakistani matter, we are clear that the Pakistani authorities need to respect fundamental freedoms, including the right to a fair trial, due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment,” he said.
This applies to Imran Khan as it does to all Pakistani citizens.
The minister added that UK ministers and officials have “regularly raised” with their Pakistani counterparts the need to uphold Pakistan’s constitutional and international human rights obligations, including in relation to Imran.
Several peers highlighted reports that Imran had been denied access to lawyers, family members and doctors, and was being held in solitary confinement.
Conservative peer Zac Goldsmith – who is also Imran’s former brother-in-law – described the situation as “an international outrage”, later writing on X that peers had urged the UK Foreign Secretary to “step up”.
During the debate, he said: “We understand that Imran Khan has been denied access to lawyers, denied access to his family, including his two sons, denied access to doctors, and that he has been held in solitary confinement, which is causing his health to deteriorate rapidly.”
Goldsmith asked whether the UK should review its aid contribution to Pakistan, noting that it has often been a recipient of British aid. He suggested that aid should be conditional on Islamabad demonstrating a clear commitment to the Commonwealth Charter, which includes judicial independence and the rule of law.
In response, Baroness Chapman said that the UK has maintained a consistent position that all prisoners should have access to healthcare and family visits, and that this message will continue to be conveyed to Islamabad.
On development spending, he noted that the UK had already cut its aid budget by 40% and further announcements on the country’s allocation would be made soon.
The debate also drew comparisons with other high-profile cases.
The minister drew a distinction between the case of jailed Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai and that of Imran, noting that Lai is a British citizen who has given the UK specific consular responsibilities that do not apply to foreign nationals in the same way.
Labour peer Lord Sikka said that there was “very soft criticism” when authoritarian measures were taken by countries considered to be UK trading and defence partners.
Arguing that the government had the tools to put pressure on the country’s military leadership, he suggested cutting aid and imposing trade sanctions. He asked what moral principles guided UK foreign policy in such matters, compared with its approach to states such as China, Iran, Russia and North Korea.
In response, Baroness Chapman said it would not be right to cut off all aid to Pakistan, stressing that such a move was not the government’s position.
She said British aid met a genuine need and supported UK interests, including cooperation on climate issues and counter-terrorism, which she described as “absolutely in our country’s interests”.
Leave a Reply