Full Analysis Summary
Toshakhana graft conviction
A Pakistani accountability court on 20 December 2025 convicted former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in the Toshakhana graft case and sentenced each to 17 years in prison.
The court found they had retained and sold state gifts, including luxury jewellery and watches received from Saudi Arabia in 2021, after undervaluing them instead of paying the assessed market value, violating Pakistan's Toshakhana rules, the judiciary said.
The verdict was announced inside high-security Adiala Jail and adds to Khan's mounting legal troubles while he remains in custody.
Sources differ on some details of the gifts' value and related penalties.
Coverage Differences
Tone / factual emphasis
Some sources emphasize the sentence and the legal finding about under‑priced state gifts, while others quickly note this adds to Khan’s broader legal woes and prior convictions. For example, Associated Press (Western Mainstream) focuses on the conviction and sentence: “A Pakistani court on Saturday convicted former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, of retaining and selling state gifts and sentenced them to 17 years in prison...” In contrast, The New Arab (West Asian) highlights that the verdict “adds to Khan’s legal troubles; he has been jailed since August 2023 and is already serving a 14‑year sentence in a separate land graft case.” The Logical Indian (Asian) includes specific allegations about undervaluing gifts and extra penalties: “fined Rs 10 million ... accused the couple of deliberately undervaluing and illegally retaining or selling state gifts.” These variations show differences in immediate framing: legal decision versus cumulative legal context.
Conflicting legal details
Reports differ on legal details such as the statutory provisions cited, fines imposed, and the numbers of witnesses and counts.
Several outlets say the punishment was handed down as two concurrent components — commonly reported as 10 years for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 and seven years under anti-corruption statutes.
Fines are reported variously (Rs 10 million, PKR 16.4 million, or amounts converted in other currencies).
The court’s hearing reportedly included testimony from about 21 witnesses, and judges are said to have noted some leniency for Khan’s age and Bushra’s gender when announcing the sentence.
Coverage Differences
Missed information / numeric discrepancy
News outlets report different fine amounts and, in places, different monetary conversions. The Logical Indian reports a fine of “Rs 10 million,” DT Next cites fines of “PKR 16.4 million fines each,” SSBCrack News says they were “fined more than 16 million Pakistani rupees,” while livemint and others mention a fine of “₹10 million apiece” (currency notation differs). These divergent figures may reflect reporting on different parts of the verdict, rounding, or conversion into other currencies rather than contradictory facts about the sentence length.
Legal framing / sections cited
Some sources specify the exact criminal code sections applied. DT Next and several outlets state the conviction included “10 years under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust) and seven years under anti‑corruption laws,” while livemint similarly reports “10 years’ rigorous imprisonment each under section 409 (criminal breach of trust) and seven years under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.” That variation reflects different wording but broadly the same legal structure reported across outlets.
Reactions to Khan verdict
Khan and his party strongly rejected the verdict as politically motivated and vowed to appeal.
PTI described the ruling in harsh terms; the Associated Press reports the party called the verdict "a black chapter in history," and The Logical Indian quotes PTI calling it "judicial murder."
Khan himself, quoted in Republic World, called the case "malicious, fabricated and politically engineered," and his legal team said an appeal to the high court is planned.
Government officials, meanwhile, defended the prosecution and argued the decision was based on evidence and legal process.
Coverage Differences
Tone / narrative
Sources differ in how prominently they feature Khan/PTI’s rhetoric versus the government’s defence. Associated Press (Western Mainstream) reports both PTI’s denunciation — “a black chapter in history” — and the government’s defence that the verdict was “based on solid evidence and fair.” Republic World (Asian) emphasizes Khan’s direct quote calling the case “malicious, fabricated and politically engineered.” The Logical Indian (Asian) records stronger language from PTI — “judicial murder.” This shows a divergence in tone emphasis: some outlets foreground the political denunciation, others present it alongside official rebuttals.
Concerns about Khan's detention
The sentence and trial conditions have drawn international concern and family alarm about Khan's treatment in custody.
Multiple outlets report UN officials and the UN Special Rapporteur for detention conditions raising alarms about prolonged solitary confinement and restricted visits.
Livemint and DT Next quote appeals from the UN and calls to end 'inhumane and undignified' conditions.
Khan's sons and former wife Jemima Goldsmith have publicly complained about limited contact and harsh conditions, and there have even been demands for 'proof of life' after unverified rumours.
Pakistani authorities counter that Khan is receiving medical care and is in 'good health', but coverage varies on how much detail or scepticism is applied to those statements.
Coverage Differences
Narrative emphasis / source of concern
Different outlets foreground different sources of concern: DT Next cites the UN Special Rapporteur Alice Jill Edwards calling detention conditions “inhumane and undignified,” livemint notes Khan’s sons’ claims of prolonged solitary confinement and the UN’s calls, Republic World includes appeals by the UN and Jemima Goldsmith, while lokmattimes highlights the sons’ demand for “proof of life.” In contrast, some reports also include jail authorities’ rebuttal that Khan is in “good health,” demonstrating divergent emphases between human‑rights framing and official denials.
Official rebuttal vs. allegations
Some outlets report authorities’ denials alongside allegations. DT Next notes jail authorities say he is in “good health,” while other outlets give more space to allegations and international concern, producing different overall impressions.
Political impact of verdict
Observers and many outlets situate the verdict within Pakistan’s broader political turmoil.
Some pieces describe the ruling as likely to deepen instability and pre‑election tensions, noting that Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek‑e‑Insaf (PTI) remains a politically potent force despite his ouster in April 2022 and previous trial outcomes.
Coverage also varies on whether the trial is strictly a legal accountability process or part of political engineering.
Some sources present it as a straightforward corruption conviction with supporting evidence, while others emphasise accusations of politicisation and note prior convictions and suspended political rights that together reshape Pakistan’s electoral landscape.
Coverage Differences
Narrative / political framing
Different outlets frame the verdict either as legal accountability or as politically motivated. Zoom Bangla News (Asian) says the ruling is “expected to deepen Pakistan’s political crisis” and notes PTI’s claims of politicization and government denials. Associated Press (Western Mainstream) reports background about Khan’s ouster and PTI’s continued popularity, noting the party called the verdict “a black chapter in history.” The Logical Indian explicitly calls this the latest of multiple convictions: “The ruling is Khan’s seventh conviction this year.” These variances reflect whether outlets foreground political consequences or legal process.