The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Pakistan to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 22/2024 concerning Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, asking the Government of Saudi Arabia to immediately and unconditionally release him and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi: Opinion No. 22/2024.
FORMER PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER ARRESTED AND DETAINED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, born in 1952, is a Pakistani citizen and the founder and Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), one of Pakistan's largest political parties. He served as Prime Minister from August 2018 to April 2022. Mr. Khan was an outspoken critic of corruption and military overreach, which reportedly led to his removal from office following a no-confidence vote in April 2022.
Following this, Mr. Khan was arrested on three occasions. He was first arrest on 9 May 2023, by some 100 paramilitary troops of the Pakistan Rangers, on the basis of a warrant emitted by the National Accountability Bureau. The Supreme Court issued an order to release him, as considering his arrest illegal. Though not the object of this opinion, it is noteworthy that following this arrest, mass protests led to a crackdown on PTI, with many leaders forced to resign, thousands of its supporters detained, and Mr. Khan being banned from television.
In relation to his second and third arrests, on 4 July 2022, several members of the Pakistani National Assembly filed a complaint against Mr. Khan, claiming he would have retained gifts that he had received as Prime Minister without disclosing them in his statements of assests for different periods. In October 2022 the Election Commission found him guilty and he was thus removed from the National Assembly. Following this, a criminal complaint was filed against him, and he was indicted on 10 May 2023.
On 5 August 2023, he was found guilty of having committed corrupt practices by making false declarations regarding the gifts he had received while Prime Minister. As such, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. Half an hour after the decision was rendered, Mr. Khan was assaulted and arrested at his home by law enforcement personnel. He was transported to Attock Jail, though the court had ordered for him to be taken to Adiala Jail, where he was eventually transferred a few weeks later. On 8 August 2023, on the basis of the conviction, the Election Commission disqualified Mr. Khan from running for office for five years. This case is referred to as the "Toshakhana" one.
On 28 August 2023, the Islamabad High Court suspended Mr. Khan’s sentence and ordered that he be released on bail pending the consideration of his appeal. However, he was kept in detention in connection with another case, the "cipher" case, involving Mr. Khan’s alleged wrongful sharing and retention of a classified document. In practice, the document had officially declassified when Mr. Khan was Prime Minister. On 30 January 2023, Mr. Khan was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in relation to this case.
Though given the opportunity to answer these allegations, the Government of Pakistan did not do so.
ARRESTED WITHOUT A LEGAL BASIS TO PREVENT HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE THEN UPCOMING ELECTIONS
Concerning the Toshakhana case, the Election Commission - acting as the prosecuting authority - and the Speaker of the National Assembly who referred the case to the Commission acted irregularly by referring and investigating the complaint. In addition, the Election Commission postponed the general elections in violation of the Constitution, definitively preventing Mr. Khan from participating. Considering this in light of the broader mentioned context of political repression against the PTI, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Khan's arrest in this case had no legal basis and only served his disqualification from running for political office. The Working Group noted that the manner in which Mr. Khan was convicted in this case (i.e., a summary judgment delivered in absentia) and his subsequent violent arrest further compounded this illegality. Notably, the Working Group emphasised the failure of the court to inform Mr. Khan or his counsel that a judgement would be issued, and the failure to inform him of the judgement at the time of his arrest. Thus, the Working Group considered this situation in violation of Mr. Khan's rights not to be arbitrarily arrested and to liberty and security of person, enshrined in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant.
Concerning the cipher case, Mr. Khan was accused and convicted for having compromised national security by having wrongfully shared and retained a classified document in violation of the Official Secrets Act. This was regarded as an ex post facto reinterpretation of legal actions he took while in office used to justify his arrest, that was even contrary to the Inter-Services Intelligence's finding that the leaked document represented no security threat. In light of the above, the Working Group considered Mr. Khan's prosecution in this case lacked a legal basis and was politically motivated. Besides, neither Mr. Khan nor his legal counsel was invited to any hearing or given any opportunity to challenge these allegations and subsequent arrest prior the issuance of the arrest order.
On top of these two cases, the Working Group noted that Mr. Khan was being prosecuted in two other cases, in which he was sentenced to 14 and 7 years in prison respectively. In these circumstances, the Working Group emphasised the coincidence in the timing of all the different prosecutions, which effectively prevented Mr. Khan from contesting the general election, and the fact that considering Mr. Khan's age of 71, he has been facing a de facto life sentence. The Working Group further considered the broader context in which these prosecutions were happening, that is to say the general ban for PTI to get any media coverage in Pakistan, even going as far as prohibiting to mention Mr. Khan's name in the medias, as well as the prohibition imposed on the PTI to use its traditional symbols for the election campaign. Altogether, the Working Group considered these elements as further proofs of the politically motivated arrests of Mr. Khan, in order to prevent him from participating in the elections.
Last, in October 2023, the Islamabad High Court denied Mr. Khan's release on bail in view of his appeal. The Working Group considered that this decision was not founded on an individualised determination but, rather, a presumption of guilt. As such, the Working Group established Mr. Khan's right not to be held in pre-trial detention unless necessary was not respected, in violation of article 9(3) of the Covenant.
Altogether, the Working Group considered that Mr. Khan's arrest and detention were arbitrary under category I, as lacking a legal basis.
DETAINED FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF OPINION, EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION AND TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The source asserted that Mr. Khan’s detention was arbitrary, claiming it resulted from his exercise of fundamental rights, including the freedom of opinion, expression, to take part in public affairs, and association. First and foremost, Mr. Khan's detention would be related to his leadership of and affiliation with the country’s leading opposition party, the PTI, as well as to prevent him from participating in the upcoming elections, contrary to his rights to association, peaceful assembly and to take part in public affairs. In relation to the cipher case, the source explained that the information contained in the declassified document were of public interest, and that Mr. Khan's public statements made in relation to this document were protected under his right to freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, Mr. Khan faced media bans and restrictions on his party’s activities, indicating an attempt to suppress his political influence.
In light of the above, the Working Group first considered that there was no evidence suggesting that Mr. Khan’s actions threatened national security or public order, and recalled that those may never be invoked to justify the muzzling of a multiparty democracy and/or human-rights. Considering this, and in light of the absence of any rebuttal from the Government, the Working Group considered that Mr. Khan was prosecuted, arrested and detained in relation to his leadership of the PTI, in an attempt to silence him and his supporters, and so to exclude their political participation in the then upcoming elections. As such, the Working Group found that Mr. Khan's rights to freedom of expression and opinion, association, peaceful assembly and to take part in public affairs, enshrined in articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and article 19, 20, 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, the Working Group found that Mr. Khan was detained in relation to the peaceful exercise of his fundamental rights, rendering his detention arbitrary under category II.
NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF HIS RIGHTS TO FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS
The Working Group first examined the alleged violations of Mr. Khan's due process and fair trial rights which occured during both the Toshakhana and cipher cases.
In the Toshakhana case, Mr. Khan was not promptly informed in detail of the nature and cause of the charges against him, as they were not presented to him during the trial's first day and he was not asked to enter a plea either. Besides, Mr. Khan only had access to the documents used by the Election Commission to file a criminal complaint against him on the first day of the trial. Moreover, in both cases, Mr. Khan and his legal counsel were not allowed to examine key evidence, present their own witnesses, examine the prosecution witnesses, present a closing argument, nor to prepare adequately his defence. In light of the above, the Working Group considered that the rights of Mr. Khan to fair trial - including to be informed promptly of the charges against him, to have adequate time to prepare a defense with his counsel, and to present and examine witnesses - enshrined in articles 14(1) and (3)(a), (b) and (e) of the Covenant, had been violated.
In the Tokashana case, Mr. Khan was denied access to his legal team for 2 days following his arrest, despite having emphasised that he had to sign a power of attorney that would enable his lawyers to challenge various court orders. In the cipher case, the authorities limited the number of lawyers of Mr. Khan allowed per hearing, which made it impossible for his international counsels to follow the proceedings, considering it was an in camera trial. Besides, the Court terminated the defence lawyers’ cross examination of witnesses and appointed public lawyers instead. As such, the Working Group considered that in both cases, Mr. Khan's rights to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to present an effective defense through counsel of his choosing, enshrined in articles 14(3)(b) and (d) of the Covenant.
In the Tokashana case, the presiding judge violated numerous due process rights, which according to the source demonstrated that he was not acting in an independent and impartial manner. For example, he failed to inform Mr. Khan or his counsel that a judgment would be issued, thus trialing him in absentia. As such, the Working Group recalled that trials in absentia seriously violate fair trial rights. In the cipher case, Mr. Khan and his counsel were not given the opportunity to contest the order for his arrest. Besides, the interim Government created a new special court for his trial, one which bypassed the legal procedures and the oversight that an usual court should have had in case such a complaint is filed. Altogether, the Working Group thus considered that Mr. Khan's right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, enshrined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had been violated.
Lastly, prior and during the legal proceedings of both the Tokashana and cipher cases, the authorities made several statements portraying Mr. Khan as a criminal. For instance, on 15 April 2022, before the Members of the National Assembly had even filed their complaint against Mr. Khan, the authorities publicly accused him of illegally selling gifts. Besides, a ban to mention Mr. Khan and his party in the medias was implemented by the authorities due to the alleged hate speeches spread by Mr. Khan, though no proper charges was ever brought against him on this matter. Lastly, Mr. Khan was arrested for the first time by some 100 paramilitary troops in riot gear who assaulted him, and during his in camera hearings during the cipher case, he was detained in a cage - both actions which presented him as a dangerous criminal. All in all, the Working Group thus found that Mr. Khan's right to be presumed innocent, enshrined in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14(2) of the Covenant, had been undermined.
In a second time the Working Group focused on the cipher case only. The source notably explained that Mr. Khan's hearing was not public, as it was held in camera inside the Adiala Jail. Despite this, the source emphasised that the full document on which the case was based - which was the alleged classified document that Mr. Khan had illegally shared - was made public 6 days prior to the first order issued by the Court. Besides, all the declarations made by Mr. Khan concerning the said document were public as well. As such, the source argued that the holding of the trial in camera was unjustified. In this light, and given the lack of answer by the Government, the Working Group considered that Mr. Khan's right to a public hearing, enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, had indeed been violated.
Hence, the Working Group concluded that the violations of Mr. Khan's rights to fair trial and due process were of such gravity as to render his detention arbitrary under category III.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II and III because his deprivation of liberty of was in contravention of articles 3, 9, 10, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 10, 14, 19, 22 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group recommended that the Government of Pakistan take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Khan without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Khan immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Comments