• Concerns focus on solitary confinement, lack of family and medical access
• Lawmakers from upper house call for linking aid, trade to human rights benchmarks
• Peers press for stronger action, former brother-in-law terms ex-PM’s detention ‘international outrage’

LONDON: Former prime minister Imran Khan’s imprisonment and reported deteriorating health came under sustained scrutiny in the UK parliament on Tuesday, as peers from across party lines pressed the Labour government in the House of Lords to consider linking British aid and trade to human rights benchmarks.

The issue, raised during a session of oral questions, prompted lawmakers to question the UK’s leverage with a key Commonwealth partner and to urge ministers to intensify diplomatic engagement with Islamabad and take a more robust stance on what Khan’s former brother-in-law described as “an international outrage”.

Responding on behalf of the Foreign Office, Minister of State Baroness Chapman of Darlington said that while Pakistan’s judicial system is its own affair, the UK has consistently voiced its concerns over fundamental rights.

“While Pakistan’s judicial processes are, of course, a matter for Pakistan, we are clear that the Pakistani authorities need to respect fundamental freedoms, including the right to a fair trial, due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment,” she said. “This applies to Imran Khan as it does to all Pakistani citizens.”

The minister added that UK officials had “regularly raised” with their Pakistani counterparts the need to uphold Pakistan’s constitution and international human rights obligations, including in relation to Khan.

During the debate, several peers detailed reports that Khan has been held in solitary confinement and denied adequate access to his lawyers, family members and doctors.

Conservative peer Zac Goldsmith, the former brother-in-law of Khan, was among the most vocal critics.

“We understand that Imran Khan has been denied access to lawyers, denied access to his family, including his two sons, denied access to doctors, and that he has been kept in solitary confinement, with his health deteriorating rapidly,” Goldsmith said.

He questioned whether the UK should reconsider its aid to Pakistan, which has often been a top recipient of British assistance, suggesting it should be contingent on Islamabad demonstrating a clear commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law as outlined in the Commonwealth Charter.

In response, Chapman said the UK would continue to convey its position that all prisoners should have access to healthcare and family. Regarding development spending, she noted the UK had already reduced its aid budget by 40 per cent, with further country-specific announcements to come.

Labour peer Lord Sikka argued that the government levelled only “very soft criticism” when authoritarian acts were committed by Britain’s trade and defence partners.

He suggested the UK had tools to exert pressure, such as ending aid or imposing trade sanctions, and asked what moral principle guided a foreign policy that treated Pakistan differently from states like China, Iran or Russia.

Chapman countered that ending all aid to Pakistan was not the government’s position and “would not be the right thing to do.”

She said British assistance addressed genuine need and supported UK’s interests, including vital cooperation on climate issues and counter-terrorism, which she described as “absolutely in the interest of our country”.

The debate also drew comparisons to other high-profile cases. Crossbench peer Lord Shaffaq Mohammed noted that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was permitted to travel to London for medical treatment in 2019 while serving a prison sentence.

He asked how the government would respond if Khan sought similar permission. Chapman replied that such a request would be a matter for the Home Office.

Concerns about Pakistan’s broader democratic trajectory also featured prominently.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Purvis of Tweed warned of “significant worry about the extent of state capture of the Pakistani economy by the military” and asked if human rights would be explicitly integrated into the UK-Pakistan trade dialogue.

Chapman acknowledged “very real concerns” about the transparency of military courts and affirmed that human rights were integral to all of the UK’s trading relationships. Concluding the session, Conservative peer Lord Hannan of Kingsclere said no British government could be indifferent to developments in a Commonwealth ally with which it shares deep ties, including a population of 1.5 million Britons of Pakistani origin.

He argued Pakistan would struggle to achieve stability and attract investment without restoring democratic norms.

Chapman said the UK would continue to engage with Islamabad on inclusive politics and the rule of law while maintaining crucial relationships.

Published in Dawn, February 27th, 2026