Imran Khan's sons call on Donald Trump to intervene and secure his release
Jailed former prime minister Imran Khan 's sons have urged US president Donald Trump and the international community to call for their father's r elease from a Pakistani prison.
British citizens Suleman Khan, 28, and Qasim Khan, 26, broke their silence for the first time to make a public appeal after 'exhausting' legal and other routes.
Mr Khan, the 72-year-old cricketer-turned-politician, has been lodged in the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi since 2023 after a court handed him a three-year sentence in a corruption case.
He faces some 150 charges in total, all of which his party says are politically motivated. The Tehreek-e-Insaf chief served as Pakistan 's prime minister between 2018 and 2022 before being removed from office.
In an interview broadcast live on X with citizen journalist Mario Nawfal, Qasim Khan said: "We want the international community to take action and who better than [Donald] Trump.'
'...We would love to speak to Trump and try and figure out a way where he would be able to help out." he said, adding they were trying to "bring democracy to Pakistan".
Both sons called Mr Khan their "hero" and added they had never "spoken before, but seeing what he's going through, we couldn't stay quiet".
When asked about US official Richard Grenell 's call for their father's release, the brothers said they were grateful for all the "support he has shown".
Suleman Khan said: 'In terms of a message to the Trump administration, we'd call for any government that supports free speech and proper democracy to join the call for our father's release, and especially the most powerful leader in the world.'
The brothers accused the Pakistan government of punishing Mr Khan by keeping him in isolation and complete darkness following a pro- democracy protest that called for the former prime minister's release.
Mr Khan has no "access to the outside world, no access to doctors, and has been in prolonged solitary confinement", his elder son said. "Court mandates we speak to him once every week, but we speak to him once in two or three months."
Their mother, Jemima Goldsmith, last October accused the Shehbaz Sharif government of cutting his access to lawyers and family visitations and even severing electricity to his cell. "He is now completely isolated, in solitary confinement, literally in the dark, with no contact with the outside world,' the film producer, who was married to Khan from 1995 to 2004, said in a post on X.
Qasim Khan reiterated his mother's concerns, adding Mr Khan was "there for 10 days in the pitch black". He said the family wanted "international pressure" on Pakistan because their father is "currently living in inhumane conditions".
"They are not giving him [Imran Khan] basic human rights," Qasim Khan said. "It is basically for human rights of not only our father but also other political prisoners and the restoration of proper democracy in Pakistan."
Mr Khan's political party, earlier in May, petitioned the court for his urgent release from jail, claiming he could potentially be targeted in drone strikes during Pakistan's military standoff with India. His party said a plea had been filed in the Islamabad High Court to seek his release on parole during a 'national emergency' as India and Pakistan's military exchanged volleys of drones and shells.
Both nations walked away from the brink of war following a ceasefire announcement this weekend.
Mr Khan's sons said they miss their father, but "what hurts more is seeing a nation lose the man who gave everything for it".
'He always told us 'if you stand for truth, you'll pay a price. We're seeing that now'."
Former UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith, in a post on X, praised his nephews for speaking up now for their father. "So proud of my nephews. They have never courted publicity," he said.
Mr Goldsmith added: "But they are speaking up now for their father Imran Khan – a hero for so many in Pakistan, an incorruptible leader who is being tortured by a desperate, corrupt and greedy establishment."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Indira Gandhi: The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure".What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976."The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus".Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking."The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC."During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way."The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sanders warns of authoritarianism after Trump deploys national guard to LA
Bernie Sanders warned of the US's slide into authoritarianism following Donald Trump's decision to deploy the national guard to Los Angeles over the city's protests against federal immigration raids. Speaking to CNN on Sunday, the leftwing Vermont senator said: 'We have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism … My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles did not request the national guard but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Sanders, and many others, have long warned for the potential risk to American democracy that Trump represents in his second term. Since returning to the White House Trump has roiled American politics and civic life with numerous actions including attacking universities, slashing government spending and firing tens of thousands of employees and rolling back the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Sanders added: 'He is suing the media who criticizes him. He is going after law firms who have clients who were against him. He's going after universities that teach courses that he doesn't like. He's threatening to impeach judges who rule against him. And he's usurping the powers of the United States congress. This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law.' Pointing to the Republican-led House and Senate, Sanders went on to say that the future of the US 'rests with a small number of Republicans in the House and Senate who know better, who do know what the constitution is about'. 'It's high time they stood for our constitution and the rule of law,' Sanders said. His latest interview comes after widespread backlash from California leaders towards Trump's decision to deploy 2,000 California national guards to respond to the immigration protests. Trump's decision came at the objection of California governor Gavin Newsom, who called it 'purposefully inflammatory.' 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles – not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Newsom said, adding: 'Don't give them one.' Over the weekend, Los Angeles has been rocked by widespread protests in response to the Trump administration's draconian immigration raids against migrant communities. Trump's deployment of the national guard marks the first time a US president wielded such power since the 1992 riots in Los Angeles over the brutal beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by four white police officers who were acquitted.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Aung San Suu Kyi's son aims for world record 80,000 messages to honour her 80th birthday
The son of political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi has launched a bid to collect a world-record 80,000 messages from around the world to honour her 80th birthday. Nobel Peace Prize winner Ms Suu Kyi faces 27 years in jail, with the democratically elected leader of Myanmar having been imprisoned during a military coup in 2021. As well as asking for people to upload voice or video messages, Kim Aris is also asking the public to sign an e-birthday card for her birthday while raising money for humanitarian aid for Mayanmar. The messages will also be stored on a disk until Mr Aris can hand it to his mother in person. In a video message, her son, Mr Aris, said: 'The Sue 80 Birthday Wishes campaign offers a simple and secure way for individuals worldwide to upload a birthday wish honouring [Ms Suu Kyi's] 80th birthday. 'Everyone can upload a birthday wish, free of charge. '[Ms Suu Kyi] has devoted her life to democracy and human rights, spending a quarter of it in prison or house arrest due to her unwavering compassion for her people and singular vision for a democratic and free Burma [Myanmar]...I encourage everyone to upload a birthday message in her honour. 'A seemingly small gesture that carries profound significance. As a lasting expression of our collective solidarity.' The campaign is open from 4 to 19 June. Ms Suu Kyi raised her two children, Kim and his brother Alexander, in the UK after studying at Oxford and marrying a British academic Michael Aris. She returned to Myanmar in 1988, initially to nurse her sick mother before becoming caught up in the pro-democracy movement in the country. She spent nearly 15 of the 21 years between 1989 to 2010 under house arrest, when her fight for democracy became famous across the world. In 2015 the junta allowed Ms Suu Kyi to become the de facto head of Myanmar following elections, but only if they controlled key ministries, including home affairs and defence, as well as the military budget. In 2019 she appeared at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to defend her country's use of force against the Rohingya, which brought criticism from human rights groups and the international community. In 2021, she was imprisoned after the military seized power in a coup which plunged the country into conflict. Earlier this month, a report was released highlighting the plight of Ms Suu Kyi and 22,000 other political prisoners, as well as detailing violence in the country – including army airstrikes and ground attacks against civilians, as well as massacres, beheadings, executions, rapes and tortures. Earlier this year, Independent TV released the Cancelled: The Rise and Fall of Aung San Suu Kyi. The film triggered calls from three former foreign secretaries, William Hague, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, for her to be freed following her arrest on 'trumped up' charges. The birthday message collection and card for Ms Suu Kyi is part of a wider campaign, under the banner: 'For her we can, For Myanmar we must.' Mr Aris will also run 80 kilometres, 10 kilometres daily for eight consecutive days, to commemorate his mother's birthday in tribute to what he calls 'her quiet strength, and her enduring spirit'. The run will take place from 12 to 19 June and will also be raising funds for Myanmar. Mr Aris is also encouraging people to take on their own personal challenges around the number 80 or eight. People of all ages have already taken on things like completing 80 acts of kindness, love, or remembrance, giving 80 flowers or donating 80 food parcels or 80 books for schools.
