The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to direct the Adiala jail authorities to transfer incarcerated PTI founder and former prime minister Imran Khan to Shifa International Hospital for medical assessment and treatment until September 16 is one that should transcend political differences. Basic healthcare is a fundamental right and cannot be made conditional on a prisoner’s political status, popularity or relationship with the government of the day.
The PTI has rightly welcomed the decision. Party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has said that the party would not politicise Imran Khan’s health and that medical reports would not be used for political or personal purposes. This is a sensible position. Whatever disagreements exist over Mr Khan’s politics or the cases against him, his health must remain a matter of medical concern rather than political manoeuvring.
Mr Gohar has also raised a legitimate question regarding former first lady Bushra Bibi, arguing that she too should have access to appropriate hospital treatment and medical facilities if required. The same principle must apply to every prisoner. Meanwhile, some PPP leaders, including Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, have criticised the government for failing to act on Imran’s medical reports and waiting instead for a court order. The federal government, however, appears dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s decision and has filed a review petition.
Inevitably, the order has also generated speculation about its wider political implications. The 26th and 27th constitutional amendments have significantly altered the judiciary’s powers, prompting some observers to interpret the development as the product of a political understanding, while others believe the court simply responded to the latest medical assessment. There has even been speculation that the decision could eventually contribute to the formation of a broader national government involving PTI representatives.
Other theories have linked the development to possible political understandings over the creation of new provinces or administrative units, potentially putting pressure on the PPP, which has opposed such proposals. Yet a report published in this newspaper suggests that the decision was not entirely unexpected. Discussions between PTI representatives and the authorities had reportedly been under way for months regarding the possibility of allowing Imran Khan access to a private hospital, facilitating meetings with his sisters and family, and placing safeguards around those meetings to prevent them from becoming political or media events.
This background is important because it allows the political speculation to be separated from the much more fundamental issue of prisoner rights. There may be political calculations surrounding the order, but those calculations should not obscure the principle that an incarcerated person remains entitled to healthcare, legal access and contact with family within the applicable rules.
Comparisons are already being drawn between the development and what some describe as Imran Khan’s ‘Nawaz moment’, referring to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s transfer from prison to hospital. But the comparison has clear limitations. Imran Khan was allowed to meet one of his sisters on Tuesday following the Supreme Court order, after reportedly being denied meetings with his family, lawyers and party colleagues since December last year. That prolonged isolation itself deserves scrutiny.
A prisoner does not lose his basic rights simply because he is politically powerful, controversial or facing serious criminal cases. Access to medical care, doctors, lawyers and family is not a favour that governments should grant or withdraw according to political circumstances. Restrictions may be imposed where legitimate security or legal considerations require them, but such restrictions must be lawful, proportionate and subject to oversight.
The handling of Imran Khan’s eye condition is another matter of concern. The secrecy surrounding his treatment several months ago raised legitimate questions about transparency and accountability. Medical care for an incarcerated person should never become a matter of political discretion. Where a prisoner requires specialist treatment, the authorities should ensure that he receives it promptly and that appropriate medical professionals, rather than political considerations, determine the course of treatment.
There is also a less visible but equally important dimension to prolonged isolation: mental wellbeing. Extended separation from family, lawyers and other permitted contacts can have serious psychological consequences. Prison itself is a form of punishment; it should not become a justification for imposing additional hardships that have no legitimate legal or security basis.
Pakistan’s political history makes this issue especially important. The PML-N and PPP have themselves experienced periods of political victimisation, imprisonment and restrictions under successive governments. Yet the country has repeatedly fallen into the same cycle: those in power use state institutions against their opponents, only for political circumstances to change and the same tactics to be turned against them.
Breaking that cycle requires a simple principle: fundamental rights cannot depend on which political party occupies the government benches. The rights of prisoners must be protected irrespective of whether the prisoner is a former prime minister, a political opponent or an ordinary citizen.
The Supreme Court’s decision may well have political consequences, and those consequences will inevitably be debated. But the more important question is whether Pakistan can establish a political and legal culture in which healthcare and basic human dignity are treated as rights rather than concessions.
Whatever political calculations may surround Imran Khan’s hospital transfer, the principle should remain straightforward: health is not a privilege to be granted to political allies or withheld from political opponents.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
