Lawyers, activists react to Imaan, Hadi’s conviction

Political parties, parliamentarians and members of the legal community condemned the conviction and sentencing of human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, on Saturday, describing the verdict as “unfair” and a “grave miscarriage of justice”.

A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Saturday convicted the two in a case related to controversial social media posts and sentenced them to 17 years in prison.

The case pertains to alleged posts and reposts on X, formerly Twitter, which authorities described as “anti-state”. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) registered the case in August last year under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016, alleging the content was intended to incite divisions and portray state institutions negatively.

The couple was arrested on Friday in Islamabad while reportedly heading to the district courts, and the court announced its verdict today.

‘Unfair and non-transparent trial’

The Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz-e-Ayeen-e-Pakistan (TTAP) condemned what it described as an “unfair and non-transparent trial” and said the verdict violated “the fundamental principles of judicial independence”.

In a statement, the opposition coalition said the decision reflected “an atmosphere of fear and pressure within the judiciary, where political objectives were being prioritised over the dispensation of justice”.

It termed the verdict “a blot on democracy and justice” and demanded the immediate release of both individuals.

‘Complete moral and institutional collapse’

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf raised concerns over the alleged mistreatment of the couple, describing it as “outrageous”.

It criticised the authorities for what it called a “complete moral and institutional collapse”.

‘Grave miscarriage of justice’

TTAP leader and newly appointed Senate opposition leader Raja Nasir Abbas called the verdict a “grave miscarriage of justice”.

In a post on X, he said: “These human rights lawyers were convicted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act solely for social media posts criticising what they saw as state abuses and advocating for marginalised communities.”

He added: “The unfair sentences, procedural irregularities, and apparent motivations behind the case reveal a weaponisation of the law to silence dissent and intimidate those who defend vulnerable groups.”

https://x.com/AllamaRajaNasir/status/2015064026066325749?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

‘Sham beyond any doubt’

Lawyer and civil rights activist, Jibran Nasir, similarly questioned the judge’s jurisdiction to give the sentence. Nasir wrote on X that the judge “is expressly barred from pronouncing final judgement … till the final disposal of the transfer application which is pending before the Islamabad High Court”.

He added, “We filed this Transfer Application on behalf of Imaan and Hadi on 05.12.2025, seeking transfer of the trial from the court of Afzal Majoka. The application is yet to be heard and decided.”

“This act of Judge Afzal Majoka is coram non judice. It is not a judicial order, it is a nullity, not even worth the paper it is written on,” Nasir wrote.

Condemning the decision, he stated, “Imaan and Hadi do not stand convicted but this trial has proved to be sham beyond any doubt and has irreparably prejudiced Imaan and Hadi’s right to fair trial and thus the trial should be considered vitiated.”

‘Totally illegal’

Imaan’s mother and former federal minister, Shireen Mazari, similarly challenged the decision, terming it “totally illegal”.

‘No feet to stand on’

Meanwhile, journalist Mariana Baabar termed the decision a “clear message for others who rise to challenge and question the state.”

In a separate tweet, she said, “When judiciary itself makes mockery of the law they are bound to protect. From the beginning case had no feet to stand on.”

Human rights reporter Alifya Sohail questioned the ruling on X, asking: “How did Judge Afzal Majoka override the Supreme Court and High Court to hand Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha 17 years while his transfer petition in that case is still pending?”

‘Appalling’

Senior lawyer and columnist Reema Omer termed the judgment “appalling”, saying it should alarm anyone who believes in dissent and freedom of expression.

Lawyer Ayman Zafar said the troubling aspect was not only the allegation of mistreatment but the “growing casualness” with which such complaints were surfacing during court proceedings.

She added in a statement, adding that “being under investigation does not place someone outside the protection of the law”.

Zafar said a system confident in its authority did not need to rely on discomfort or coercion to assert control, stressing that if the state believed its case was strong, it should allow the legal process to speak for itself.

Any action that appeared excessive, she said, distracted from the merits of a case and raised questions that need not arise in the first place.

‘Punishment dressed up as process’

Constitutional lawyer Usama Khawar Ghumman said the proceedings did not amount to due process, describing them as “punishment dressed up as process”.

In a statement, he said that in a “colonial state, the process is the punishment”, adding that keeping individuals incarcerated for prolonged periods rendered appeals meaningless. While the convictions were likely to be set aside on appeal, he explained that by that time their liberty would already have been lost, without compensation or accountability for the prosecution or the system.

He said the law was being used as an “instrument of control” rather than a means of justice.

‘Persecution of its own’

Meanwhile, lawyer Moiz Baig said the convictions did not come as a surprise, given the manner in which the trial against the couple had been conducted.

However, he added, “What’s disconcerting is the manner in which the bar has acquiesced to the persecution of its own. Imaan and Hadi’s conviction sends a message across the entire bar that those who defend those being persecuted by the state, too, shall fall prey to the state’s might.”

‘Preposterous mockery of justice’

Barrister Taimur Malik termed the convictions “preposterous”.

He went on to say, “Expect PPP and PML-N folks to stay quiet on this and wait for their turn as well.”

Taimur Jhagra, former finance minister for Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, called the situation a “mockery of justice”.

“Completely illegal, unconstitutional, & baseless order without any roots in due process,” said digital rights activist Usama Khilji.

Journalist Benazir Shah said the decision had rendered Pakistan all the more poor, “morally and legally”.