The Commonwealth Secretariat has strongly criticised Pakistan, raising concerns about increased government repression that threatens democracy and freedoms as well as the rule of law. This comes after events showing growing worry about Pakistan’s political direction and how the government treats critics and people who speak out against it.
The immediate flashpoint was a January 2 ruling by an Islamabad anti‑terrorism court that handed life sentences in absentia to several prominent journalists, commentators, and former military officers. Those convicted include well‑known media figures such as Moeed Pirzada, Adil Raja, Wajahat Saeed Khan, Sabir Shakir, Shaheen Sehbai, and Haider Raza Mehdi, each given further double life terms under broad anti‑terrorism laws. The charges were linked to alleged “terrorism‑related” online activities, including expressing support for protests and for former Prime Minister Imran Khan, himself imprisoned on politically charged corruption allegations.
Critics argue the trial violated basic due‑process rights; many defendants were never served summonses, lacked meaningful legal representation, and were given only seven days to appeal without access to the necessary judgement documentation. Journalist Wajahat Saeed Khan, who lives abroad, said he was barred from hiring counsel unless he appeared in person, a near‑impossible condition. Another defendant, Moeed Pirzada, reported that notices were sent to an outdated address and that the case was quietly revived despite procedural obstacles. Many see the actions as part of a broader attempt to criminalise dissent and silence opposition.
In mid‑November 2025, the Commonwealth Secretariat, through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), sent an urgent letter to Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, raising alarm about Pakistan’s democratic backsliding. This private communication, obtained by Drop Site News, took aim at Pakistan’s reinstatement of civilian trials in military courts, constitutional amendments concerning the judiciary, and the continued detention of Khan. The Secretariat stressed the importance of fostering an environment where all voices can engage in the democratic process with inclusivity and national unity. The CMAG serves as the organization’s enforcement mechanism, empowering it to investigate and recommend sanctions against members that violate these foundational principles.
This marks the first known instance that the Commonwealth has publicly questioned Pakistan’s internal political landscape since Khan’s arrest over two years ago. The letter also raised concerns about the broader environment for political opposition and minority communities and cited attempts by Pakistan’s powerful military establishment to consolidate power, including efforts to amend constitutional provisions to expand junta authority.
The dissent comes amid mounting international alarm. On December 12, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, issued a public demand that Pakistan address the reported inhumane conditions in which Khan is held, highlighting his prolonged solitary confinement and restricted access to the outside world, which she labelled “unlawful.”
Having formed from these concerns, leaked documents show that the Commonwealth’s own observer mission to Pakistan’s 2024 general elections have found evidence of omnipresent irregularities, a report which was at first hidden from the Secretariat before eventually being leaked. Confrontations between Pakistani officials and Western diplomats during this period have underscored geopolitical tensions and the risks exiled objectors face.
The government in Pakistan has not publicly responded yet to the objections made by the Commonwealth while continuing to establish strategic engagements along with key allies such as the United States. Analysts have warned that international partners may be overlooking democratic waste for geopolitical interests.
Overall, one can see how the Commonwealth Secretariat’s objections highlight international unease with Pakistan’s direction. It primarily shows the balance between sovereign governance and democratic standards within the Commonwealth. This intervention’s impact is uncertain but marks key institutional accountability.
