The recent arrest of two sons of Aleema Khan, sister of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, has sparked widespread concern and criticism across political and legal circles in Pakistan. The development comes only days after the Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted Imran Khan’s bail in eight different cases. Observers are now closely watching the Al-Qadir Trust case, because if bail is also granted in that matter, Imran Khan could finally walk free from prison after more than a year of continuous legal battles.
Aleema Khan’s two sons, however, find themselves embroiled in the May 9 cases—an umbrella term used for hundreds of First Information Reports (FIRs) registered following the violent protests that broke out across Pakistan after Imran Khan’s arrest. The protests led to widespread damage to public and private property, including attacks on military installations. Thousands of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) workers, leaders, and sympathizers were arrested. In many cases, families alleged that individuals were picked up arbitrarily, often without clear evidence of their direct involvement.
What makes the arrest of Aleema Khan’s sons controversial is the timing and the manner in which the police acted. Initially, their names were not part of any investigation list, but after “second thoughts,” the police decided to implicate them. This has raised serious questions about the credibility of the process. The impression being created is that law enforcement agencies can add or remove names at will, without the requirement of substantial proof. Such practices cast a shadow not only over the fairness of investigations but also over the broader justice system.
Critics argue that this is nothing less than political victimization. By targeting family members of Imran Khan, the state appears to be sending a message of intimidation. Political opponents claim that the government is misusing May 9 cases as a tool to suppress dissent and weaken PTI’s political base. On the other hand, the authorities maintain that anyone found responsible for the violence of that day will be brought to justice, regardless of their family background.
The judiciary also finds itself in the spotlight. Pakistan’s courts have already been facing criticism for inconsistent decisions and delays in politically sensitive cases. When arrests such as these take place under vague circumstances, it further damages the already fragile reputation of the judiciary. The perception is that courts are failing to provide equal protection under the law, instead allowing the powerful to influence outcomes.
Such incidents not only erode public trust in institutions but also tarnish Pakistan’s global image. Rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, and when citizens believe that arrests are arbitrary and justice is selective, faith in the entire system begins to collapse. What Pakistan needs at this juncture is a transparent judicial process, free from political interference, and a police force that operates on evidence, not pressure.
If reforms are not undertaken and if arbitrary arrests continue, the long-term consequences for democracy, justice, and social stability could be severe.
