The PakStack — July 8

Today's PakStack flags the establishment’s triple play: gag 27 channels, drag Khan’s appeal, flaunt a Nobel bid—moves Netanyahu is now echoing, point for point

Welcome to The PakStack, where what matters today in Pakistan, India and the rest of South Asia can be read and processed in five minutes or less.

Written by Shiza M. / Edited by Wajahat S. Khan

Establishment on All Fronts: Silencing Critics, Orchestrating PR Stunts, and Weaponizing Courts

Court’s Gavel Silences 27 YouTube Channels — But Amplifies State Fragility

• Court directive to block 27 YouTube channels: On June 24, 2025, Islamabad’s Judicial Magistrate ordered Google/YouTube to remove or block access to 27 channels accused of uploading “false, misleading, anti‑state” content under PECA Section 37 

• Channels targeted include major government critics: Among those affected are PakStack Editor Wajahat S. Khan, PTI’s official channel and journalists like Matiullah Jan, Ahmad Noorani, Asad Ali Toor, Imran Riaz, Moeed Pirzada, Orya Maqbool, Sabir Shakir, and others 

• PECA 2025 empowers rapid takedowns: Amendments passed in January 2025 criminalize “false” information with up to 3 years in prison and grants authorities 24-hour takedown powers—fueling fears of sweeping censorship

• Journalists issue defiant responses: Asad Ali Toor publicly rejected the bans. Khan warned each takedown only magnifies state paranoia and corrodes trust, stating “silencing a journalist only amplifies his message.”

• Widespread protests and backlash: Since early 2025, media bodies like PFUJ, HRCP, and lawyers have protested amendments to PECA and related defamation laws, branding them “black laws” and staging hunger strikes, rallies, and legal challenges 

Takeaway: The Islamabad court’s sweeping order targeting 27 high-profile YouTube channels represents the culmination of a shifting legal landscape in Pakistan—one where broad digital-speech restrictions, backed by PECA 2025 amendments, are being wielded to neutralize criticism of state institutions. The law’s rapid takedown capability (within 24 hours) and undefined standards of what constitutes “fake” or “anti‑state” allow authorities to quell dissent under a veneer of legality.

But this crackdown risks backfiring spectacularly. Journalists argue that each blackout — far from silencing them — underscores state insecurity. PakStack’s very own, Wajahat S.  Khan asserted that he “will not stop doing journalism simply because it makes those in power uncomfortable” resonates offline and online, turning domestic repression into an international broadcast of instability. The perception of one-sided enforcement—where channels critical of the military or judiciary are blocked but state-aligned voices remain untouched—further corrodes public trust.

The broader reaction is intensifying too: mass protests, legal suits, hunger strikes. The PFUJ and HRCP have taken a stand, describing PECA and related defamation statutes as tools to subjugate the press. Nations and investors observing from abroad may view Pakistan’s democracy as shrinking, risking reputational and economic fallout.

Ultimately, what began as an order against 27 YouTube channels reveals much more: a battle for the soul of Pakistan’s public square, fought not on battlefields but on YouTube feeds, courtrooms, and protest lines. The state’s reliance on PECA to muzzle critics may temporarily stifle dissent — but in doing so, it has inadvertently unified journalists, civil society, and the global media in a chorus demanding transparency, accountability, and digital freedom.

Establishment's Justice Theatre: Imran’s Legal Push Crushed by NAB Delays

• Imran Khan & Bushra Bibi move Islamabad High Court: On July 8, 2025, former PM Imran Khan and his wife filed petitions in the Islamabad High Court seeking an expedited hearing to suspend their 14- and 7-year sentences, respectively, in the £190 million Al‑Qadir Trust graft case. They argue repeated delays by NAB violate their constitutional rights under Articles 4 and 9 (liberty, due process)

• Conviction labeled "political victimisation": The petitions assert their conviction (January 17, 2025) and appeals (filed January 27) were marred by weak evidence, procedural flaws, and political targeting—emphasizing an IHC promise for a prompt hearing that remains unfulfilled

• NAB accused of deliberately delaying: The National Accountability Bureau repeatedly sought adjournments, citing a “special prosecutor” needing more preparation, stalling hearings as of June 26 despite court assurances

• PTI calls it oppression campaign: PTI‑affiliated X‑accounts (PTIofficial, UKPTIOfficial) and party leaders describe the legal moves as “state-sponsored cruelty” designed to break Imran’s resolve. They frame this as a broader campaign of systemic repression

• Supportive voices and family message: Imran’s sister (Aleema Khan) echoed calls for resistance, declaring: “stand against oppression.” Meanwhile, PTI invokes solidarity, urging followers to challenge what they see as blatant injustice

Takeaway: Pakistan’s courtroom drama has morphed into a three-way cage match pitting the judiciary, the NAB, and the PTI against one another. Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi aren’t simply asking for an early hearing—they’re accusing the state of shredding their constitutional rights in slow motion. Every NAB adjournment, every missing prosecutor, is another calculated delay that turns due-process into punishment by procedural torture.

For the PTI, these stall tactics are political gold. Party channels frame Imran’s 700-day confinement as “state-sponsored cruelty,” recasting him from defendant to dissident icon. That narrative is spreading fast: protests grow louder, supporters angrier, and the establishment’s moral footing shakier with each passing day.

The collateral damage is mounting. Judicial credibility erodes as the IHC promises speed yet delivers gridlock. NAB’s selective zeal deepens institutional fault lines, validating claims that accountability is a weapon, not a principle. And every fresh postponement pushes more Pakistanis to view courts, cops, and the cabinet as different masks on the same face of repression.

Bottom line: this isn’t a squabble over court dates—it’s a stress test for Pakistan’s democracy. How the state handles Imran’s petitions will signal whether the judiciary still stands above politics or is just another arena where power plays out and rights are collateral.

The Father’s Son Speaks: 700 Days of Solitary, and Counting

• 702 Days Behind Bars: Kasim Khan, son of former PM Imran Khan, shared a stark update on X: “My father… has now spent over 700 days in prison – held in solitary confinement.”

• Piers Morgan amplifies the outrage: The outspoken UK journalist retweeted Kasim’s post, tweeting simply: “This is disgraceful.” Global attention is now shining a harsh spotlight on Pakistan’s political prisoner.

• Symbol of state overreach: Imran’s solitary confinement underscores how the NAB and judicial system are being wielded not just to detain—but to punish and silence dissent.

• Kasim's plea gains momentum: Beyond the 700-day milestone, Kasim urged followers to share his father’s interview and raise their voices, turning personal anguish into collective resistance

• Public anger crescendos: The outrage doesn’t stop online, but becomes a marker against an increasingly powerful establishment. Citizens across Pakistan and abroad are questioning: if the continuance of solitary confinement is tolerated, then the establishment is asserting itself as judge, jury, and jailer.

Takeaway: Imran Khan’s 702-day lockdown has become the establishment’s spectacular own goal. Kasim Khan’s raw appeal—boosted worldwide by Piers Morgan—rips through the state’s narrative armor and declares, in plain view, what Pakistan’s powerbrokers hoped to disguise: this is vengeance, not justice. Locking a former prime minister in solitary for nearly two years doesn’t project strength; it exposes fear.

The optics are brutal. Each international retweet chips away at the regime’s legitimacy. Every share spawns new allies, tightening the pressure vise at home and abroad. Moral gravity is shifting fast: just two months ago, the military had regained some public respect after fighting off a belligerent India. Now that goodwill is disappearing, fast.

Message to the top brass: you can jail a man, but you can’t jail the lens of global scrutiny. Power without accountability is a shaky edifice—and Kasim just knocked out a load-bearing wall through 20k plus retweets.

Netanyahu Joins Pakistan’s Nobel Playbook with Trump’s Second Nomination After Islamabad’s

• Netanyahu nominates Trump for the Peace Prize: During a July 7 dinner at the White House, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu formally nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize—lauding his role in forging peace “in one country, in one region after the other”

• Pakistan echoes the nomination: Islamabad previously recommended Trump’s nomination, citing his mediation that helped defuse the May India–Pakistan military crisis

• White House offers cautious approval: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged the Pakistani nomination as a testament to Trump’s “decisive diplomatic intervention to prevent a nuclear war between India and Pakistan”

• Region reacts with mixed responses: Pakistan’s nomination faced backlash from domestic opposition, civil society, and former diplomats, calling it “crass flattery” and demanding a retraction. Additional Indonesian and Mexican leaders have also nominated Trump for the prize

• Timing amid regional tension: Netanyahu’s move coincided with joint U.S.–Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and ongoing Gaza ceasefire negotiations—sparking controversy over applying “peace” labels amid conflict.

Takeaway: Israel and Pakistan have turned the Nobel Peace Prize into a geopolitical prop of flattery and favors. Islamabad nominated Trump first, hoping to score cheap diplomatic brownie points; Netanyahu piled on days later, hitching his own war-time pitch to the same bandwagon. Neither bid celebrates peace—the nominations are camouflage for missiles over Iran and brinkmanship in South Asia, proof that “peace” has become a marketing label slapped onto live conflicts.

At home, Pakistan’s gesture hasn’t landed: lawmakers, diplomats, and street protesters call it tone-deaf flattery that ties Islamabad even tighter to a U.S.–Israeli agenda many Pakistanis reject. Abroad, Trump beams: the endorsements burnish his comeback narrative, never mind the blood-and-thunder backstory.

Now the Nobel Committee faces a credibility test. Is it prepared to reward stage-managed optics over actual conflict resolution? Or will it draw a red line between peacemaking and political theatre? The stakes are bigger than one prize: if “peace” can be claimed in the middle of air-strikes and proxy wars, the award risks becoming just another chip on the geopolitical gaming table instead of a beacon for genuine, lasting diplomacy.