When foreign lawyers begin arguing Pakistani court cases in international newspapers, the issue is no longer justice.
Human rights lawyer Eric Lewis’s case for Imran Khan’s release in the British newspaper The Independent presents itself as a defence of due process. Strip away the jargon and looming threats, and it becomes advocacy. His column does not examine Pakistan’s legal record. It attempts to discredit it, then replace it with a personality-driven argument that suggests the law must bend because the accused is too important to jail.
That is not legal reasoning. That is lobbying. Extending this further, would a Pakistani lawyer writing in a Pakistani newspaper demanding the release of a convicted figure in the UK or the US be taken seriously? Absolutely not (pun intended). Why then is Lewis’ commentary crucial enough to stir a tempest on social media platforms?
The central fact-conveniently blurred-is straightforward. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan is not being held behind bars without process. He is a convicted individual facing multiple cases under Pakistan’s legal framework. In January 2025, he was sentenced in the Al-Qadir Trust case. In December 2025, another conviction followed in a Toshakhana case. Both cases are before appellate courts. That is what due process looks like: conviction, appeal, adjudication-not arbitrary detention.
Courts cannot calibrate decisions based on anticipated street reaction or international opinion.
Lewis collapses this distinction deliberately. He shifts from questioning outcomes to questioning the system itself, without engaging the record that produced those outcomes. One may argue that a case is flawed. One may contest evidence. But to suggest the absence of process where process is visibly underway is not analysis. It is narrative-building.
His argument then takes a more revealing turn. Khan is not just presented as a litigant, but as an indispensable global figure, compared to historical icons and described as essential to international stability. This is where the column abandons law entirely. Courts do not weigh charisma. They do not assess geopolitical utility. They adjudicate facts.
Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to function through institutions. In recent weeks, it has engaged in regional diplomacy, facilitated dialogue between rival states, and participated in multilateral de-escalation efforts. None of this has depended on one individual. States do not pause for personalities.
History also complicates the narrative Lewis advances. Khan’s tenure was not defined by steady diplomacy alone. Episodes such as the Kuala Lumpur summit withdrawal and tensions within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation required subsequent recalibration by the state. That is not evidence of irreplaceability. It is evidence of institutional continuity correcting political fluctuation. If the same standards were applied consistently, many of the arguments made in defence of Khan would collapse under their own weight.
The most problematic element of the column, however, is its use of fear. Warnings that Pakistan could face instability if Khan remains imprisoned are framed as concern, but function as pressure. The implication is clear: release him, or risk unrest.
That is precisely the logic constitutional systems are designed to reject.
Courts cannot calibrate decisions based on anticipated street reaction or international opinion. The moment they do, law ceases to be law. It becomes a negotiation.
If one case can be internationalised into leverage, every future case becomes negotiable.
This is where the line must be drawn.
Pakistan’s legal system is not beyond criticism. No system is. But criticism must operate within the framework of law-through appeals, evidence, and argument. Not through external pressure campaigns disguised as commentary.
Foreign op-eds do not confer innocence. Political admiration does not erase convictions. And international attention does not override jurisdiction.
If there are legal flaws, they must be corrected in court. If there is injustice, it must be proven through process.
But the process itself cannot be outsourced.
Because in the end, this is not about one man.
It is about whether Pakistan’s courts will decide Pakistan’s cases-or whether that authority will be negotiated elsewhere.
The writer is a freelance columnist.