Special Court Judge Abual Hasnat Zulqarnain granted former Prime Minister Imran Khan permission to communicate with his sons while he is detained at Adiala Jail. The judge directed the jail’s superintendent to facilitate a telephonic conversation through WhatsApp between Imran Khan and his sons, Qasim and Suleiman, who reside in the United Kingdom.
During the court hearing, Imran Khan’s lawyer, Sheraz Ahmed Ranjha, appeared on his behalf. The judge’s decision to allow this phone call was motivated by the acknowledgment of the family’s emotional distress during this time.
Imran Khan’s Legal Battle and Jail Stay
Imran Khan is currently facing trial under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for allegedly misusing a diplomatic cipher during his tenure as Prime Minister. This case led to his arrest in August, and he has been in detention at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. This move to grant Imran Khan the opportunity to speak with his sons is part of an ongoing legal process that has seen various developments.
The previous refusal of Imran Khan’s request to speak to his sons by the superintendent of Attock Jail was contested in court. The judge’s verdict underscores the importance of maintaining emotional ties and human rights even in the context of legal proceedings.
Concerns About Safety and Home-Cooked Meals
The judge’s decision also addressed security concerns, emphasizing that the safety of the under-trial prisoner remains a top priority. This concern extends to other aspects of Imran Khan’s life in detention, as seen in the court’s refusal to entertain the request for home-cooked meals. The court reasoned that preparing meals in prison would make jail officials responsible for the food’s quality and safety.
Read More: Taliban Seeks Inclusion in China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Additionally, Imran Khan‘s request for a bicycle for exercise within the prison was met with a cautious approach. The judge authorized the provision of a bicycle but expressed concerns about potential misuse, given the limited space and security considerations within the jail. This decision highlights the complex balance between an individual’s rights and the practical constraints of a prison environment.