AN accountability court has barred former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife from criticising the establishment and the judiciary. This order, coupled with directives that restrict the media’s ability to report on these statements, raises serious concerns. The media’s role in society is to inform the public and offer a platform for diverse voices, including those of individuals on trial. When the court curtails this function to preserve “judicial decorum”, it inadvertently casts a shadow on the need for justice to be seen to be done. The court’s request for the media to refrain from highlighting “political or inflammatory” statements by Mr Khan, as per Pemra guidelines, is another dimension where the essence of media freedom is being challenged. The guidelines are ostensibly designed to prevent matters that are sub judice from being discussed in the media. However, when applied in a manner that effectively shields public institutions from scrutiny, they serve as tools for stifling criticism and depriving the public of crucial information. In democratic societies, the media serves as a watchdog, a guardian of public interest. When journalists are asked to selectively report, or worse, to ignore, certain aspects of legal proceedings, the very foundation of democracy is weakened. Media freedom must prevail; it is not just a right but a necessity for maintaining the checks and balances that hold the powerful accountable.

The restrictions placed on media reporting in Mr Khan’s case are indicative of a broader pattern of eroding media freedoms. It is a matter that should concern every citizen, for it strikes at the very heart of basic democratic principles: transparency, accountability, and the right to a fair trial. The judiciary and the government should reconsider these prohibitions and ensure that Mr Khan’s trials, like those of his predecessors, are conducted in an open court. Only then can justice prevail. Furthermore, the continued insistence on holding Mr Khan’s trials within the confines of Adiala Jail, rather than in a regular courtroom, merits scrutiny. In the past, high-profile leaders, including prime ministers, all faced their trials in court, regardless of the security risks involved. These precedents underline a concerning deviation in Mr Khan’s case. It is incumbent upon the state to ensure the security of an undertrial prisoner, and to facilitate their right to a public hearing.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2024