.
Imaan Mazari, human rights lawyer and social activist, and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha. Photo file
ISLAMABAD:
An Islamabad magistrate’s court on Saturday sentenced human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, to a combined 17 years in prison, convicting them on multiple charges related to controversial social media posts that the prosecution said amounted to an anti-state narrative within the meaning of cybercrime laws.
In a detailed 22-page judgment written by District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Afzal Majoka, the court found the two accused guilty under several provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, while acquitting them of a charge related to hate speech.
The move follows a case brought in August last year over posts and reposts on X, formerly Twitter, described by investigators as undermining state institutions and aligning with banned organizations.
In a 22-page judgment, District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Afzal Majoka held that the prosecution had successfully established its case against Imaan Zainab Mazari Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016.
The court convicted both the accused under Section 9 of PECA and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years each, along with a fine of Rs 5 million each. Failure to pay the fine would result in one year of simple imprisonment.
Both were also convicted under Section 10 of PECA and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment each, along with a fine of Rs 30 million each. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional two years of simple imprisonment.
Furthermore, the court convicted them under Section 26-A of PECA and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years each, along with a fine of Rs 1 million each. Failing to pay, they would have to suffer six months of simple imprisonment.
The judgment notes that the convicts were already in custody in another case and were present in court via video link. The court ordered them to remain in prison to serve their sentence and granted them the benefit of article 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the adjustment of the time already spent in detention.
Warrants of committal were ordered and copies of the judgment were ordered to be provided free of charge to the two convicts through the Superintendent of Rawalpindi Central Prison.
However, the judge acquitted the couple of the offense under section 11 of PECA, observing that none of the prosecution witnesses had claimed that the accused used hate speech to promote interfaith, sectarian or racial hatred.
The case was registered by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), which alleged that Imaan Mazari propagated speech aligned with hostile terrorist groups and banned organizations and individuals. It also allegedly presented the armed forces as being behind terrorism and forced disappearances.
The judgment noted that a review of tweets, retweets and posts showed that the accused had described Pakistan as a terrorist state, described detentions under Section 11-EEA of the Anti-Terrorism Act as illegal, praised the banned organizations and individuals and described the judiciary as biased.
He observed that these narratives typically rely on emotive language, selective presentation of facts, historical grievances, or ideological framing aimed at eroding public trust in key state institutions, including the judiciary, armed forces, legislature, and law enforcement.
“Usually, this form of storytelling uses emotive language, selective presentation of facts, historical grievances, or ideological framing in an effort to erode public trust in key state institutions, including the judiciary, the armed forces, the legislature, and law enforcement. In some cases this may extend to the glorification of resistance, rebellion, or denial of legitimate state authority. »
“In constitutional and national security jurisprudence, courts have consistently distinguished between protected democratic dissent and anti-state speech by examining the intent, content, context and foreseeable impact of the expression in question. Particular weight is given to the question of whether such expression incites violence, promotes secession, encourages terrorism or creates a real, proximate and tangible threat to public order and national security,” it notes.
The Court recognized that vocal criticism of the state and its officials is an essential element of a democratic society and is protected by freedom of expression. However, he distinguished between permissible dissent and what he described as anti-state speech, which he judicially defined as speech or behavior that goes beyond lawful criticism and enters the realm of subversion, destabilization, or incitement against the state.
In such situations, the judgment said, the imposition of reasonable restrictions under constitutional and statutory law is considered justified. The court concluded that the defendants had crossed permissible legal boundaries through their tweets, retweets and online posts, thereby committing offenses under Sections 9, 10 and 26-A of the PECA.
The court further observed that both the accused had expressed views in favor of Mahrang Baloch, described in the judgment as a banned person. The defense had argued that simply expressing opinions about a banned person did not constitute an offense under Article 9 of PECA.
“This court does not agree with the arguments of the learned defense counsel because glorification has been defined in the PECA, which includes any form of praise or celebration. In these circumstances, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused under Section 9 of the PECA.”
The order adds that under Section 10 of PECA, any person who commits or threatens to commit an offense under Section 9 with intent to promote the objectives of prohibited organizations or individuals is subject to sanctions.
“It now remains to be determined whether the defendants, through their tweets, retweets and posts, supported the agenda of banned individuals or organizations.”
The court observed that the defendants had referred to Pakistan as a “terrorist state” in their tweets, a designation that, according to the order, is officially applied to only four countries: Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria.
He noted that both the accused are lawyers by profession and therefore are fully aware that Pakistan does not fall into this category. Despite this, the order said, they deliberately referred to Pakistan as a terrorist state in their social media posts, an assertion the court linked to what it described as the agenda of banned groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
The court also noted that during the evidentiary stage, the defendants argued that their actions were protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. While recognizing that Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, the Court held that this freedom remains subject to reasonable restrictions under the law.
The judgment further observed that there is a general international consensus that the right of an accused to be present at trial is not absolute and may be subject to limited exceptions.
“There are two general scenarios in which an accused will be absent from his trial: i) where the accused is removed from court for disrupting the proceedings and the prosecution or court decides to continue in his absence; and (ii) where the accused fails to appear at the trial (or stops attending mid-way) and the prosecution or the court decides to continue in his absence.
In the first scenario, the ruling notes, a disruptive defendant can be expelled for abusing his or her right to be present.
“In a case against the UK, the European Commission of Human Rights found that the right contained in Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR (to be present) probably does not include the right to obstruct one’s own trial.”
“The second scenario occurs when the defendant does not appear at trial. In this case, a decision to proceed in his absence will only be legal if the prosecution can demonstrate that the defendant has waived his right to be present. The question of what constitutes a lawful waiver and what evidence the State must produce to demonstrate that waiver is the subject of most of the case law surrounding in absentia proceedings,” the decision notes.
“Assault on justice”
Commenting on the verdict, former additional public prosecutor Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said Imaan and Hadi were found guilty and sentenced for “peaceful defense of human rights”.
“This verdict is an attack on justice and the rule of law. Lawful expression has been criminalized. Constitutional rights guaranteed by Articles 19 and 10-A have been ignored. PECA has been used as a weapon against dissent.”
He further said that the State of Pakistan had failed to fulfill its obligations under international law, arguing that it had acted in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
According to Khokhar, United Nations principles on the role of lawyers and international jurisprudence protecting dissent have been ignored.
Calling it a new low for the justice system, Khokhar said the country was witnessing “a transition from a dark hour to an era of total darkness.”
He also argued that independent observers, both at home and abroad, viewed the “trial and judgment” as predetermined, prejudiced and externalized.
