Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, another setback for the beleaguered leader who has already spent over 18 months in jail and is facing more than 100 cases.

Khan, who remains the country’s most popular political figure, has maintained that the cases against him are part of a “political witchunt” to keep him out of power. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) governed from 2018 to 2022 but he was toppled from office after losing the support of the country’s powerful military. He subsequently embarked on a public spat with the army leadership, accusing them of involvement in a plan to assassinate him.

Since his arrest he has faced a mounting number of cases, including murder, terrorism, and breaching national security. Khan was convicted in three cases, including for selling state secrets and illegal marriage, but they were later overturned or suspended last year. However, he has remained in prison.

    • @PugJesus
      link
      English
      08 hours ago

      Nothing says coup like trying to imprison Imran Khan on bogus charges like his marriage papers being invalid.

      Is that what happened back in 2022? (PROTIP: it is not)

      Maybe the US tried to dissolve the democratically elected legislature to avoid them voting against their interests?

      Oh, wait, that was what Imran Khan tried to do when the vote began.

      “Imran Khan is mistreated by the current government ran by his spiteful opposition” and “America did not pull a coup in Pakistan” are not mutually exclusive positions.

      • @IndustryStandard
        cake
        OP
        link
        English
        18 hours ago

        In the meeting, according to the document, Lu spoke in forthright terms about Washington’s displeasure with Pakistan’s stance in the conflict. The document quotes Lu saying that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” Lu added that he had held internal discussions with the U.S. National Security Council and that “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.”

        Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

        Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

        • @PugJesus
          link
          English
          -18 hours ago

          Is that supposed to reinforce the idea that it was a ‘coup’? A diplomat saying that a prime minister’s diplomatic policy will create diplomatic repercussions?

          lmao

          • @IndustryStandard
            cake
            OP
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Direct threat to make a government to overthrow their leader is ‘diplomacy’.

            • @PugJesus
              link
              English
              -16 hours ago

              Direct threat to make a government to overthrow their leader is ‘diplomacy’.

              The direct threat of… damaged diplomatic relations?

                • @PugJesus
                  link
                  English
                  05 hours ago

                  Yes blackmail.

                  Jesus Christ.

                  • @IndustryStandard
                    cake
                    OP
                    link
                    English
                    14 hours ago

                    Do you also consider the US sanctions against the ICC to be ‘diplomatic pressure’? That is the argument you are making.