.
Human rights lawyer and social activist Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha. Photo archive
ISLAMABAD:
A trial court in Islamabad on Saturday handed down a combined 17-year prison sentence to human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, convicting them of multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that prosecutors said amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.
In a detailed 22-page judgment written by District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Afzal Majoka, the court found both accused guilty under various provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016, while acquitting them of one charge related to hate speech.
The ruling followed a case launched in August last year over posts and reposts on X, formerly Twitter, which were described by investigators as undermining state institutions and aligning with banned organisations.
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 five years of rigorous imprisonment each, along with a fine of Rs 5 million each. In case of failure to pay the fine, they will be sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment.
Both were also convicted under Section 10 of the PECA and given ten years of rigorous imprisonment each, with a fine of Rs 30 million each. Failure to pay the fine would mean two more years of simple imprisonment.
On the other hand, the court convicted them under section 26-A of PECA and sentenced them to two years of rigorous imprisonment each, along with a fine of Rs 1 million each. In case of non-payment, they would have to undergo six months of simple imprisonment.
The ruling indicates that the convicts were already detained in another case and were present before the court via video link. The court ordered that they be kept in prison to serve their sentences and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows adjustment of the time they have already spent in custody.
Commitment orders were ordered to be issued and copies of the judgment were ordered to be provided free of cost to both convicts through the superintendent of Rawalpindi Central Jail.
However, the judge acquitted the couple of the crime under Article 11 of the PECA, noting that none of the prosecution witnesses had claimed that the accused used hate speech to promote interreligious, sectarian or racial hatred.
The case was registered by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), which alleged that Imaan Mazari had propagated a narrative aligned with hostile terrorist groups and banned organizations and individuals. It was also claimed that he described the armed forces as being behind terrorism and enforced disappearances.
The judgment noted that a review of the tweets, retweets and posts showed that the accused had described Pakistan as a terrorist state, called arrests under Article 11-EEA of the Anti-Terrorism Act illegal, praised proscribed organizations and individuals and portrayed the judiciary as biased.
It noted that such narratives are often based on emotive language, a selective presentation of facts, historical grievances or an ideological framework aimed at eroding public trust in key state institutions, including the judiciary, the armed forces, the legislature and law enforcement agencies.
“Usually, this form of narrative employs emotive language, a selective presentation of facts, historical grievances, or an ideological framework with the aim of eroding public confidence in central state institutions, including the judiciary, the armed forces, the legislature, and law enforcement agencies. In certain cases, it may extend to the glorification of resistance, rebellion, or denial of the state’s legal authority.”
“In constitutional and national security jurisprudence, courts have consistently drawn a distinction between protected democratic dissent and an anti-state narrative by examining the intent, content, context and foreseeable impact of the expression in question. Particular weight is given to whether such expression incites violence, promotes secession, encourages terrorism or creates a real, proximate and tangible threat to public order and national security,” it noted.
The court recognized that forceful criticism of the State and its officials is a vital element of a democratic society and is protected by freedom of expression. However, he drew a distinction between permissible dissent and what he described as an anti-state narrative, which he judicially defined as speech or conduct that goes beyond legal criticism and enters the realm of subversion, destabilization or incitement against the State.
In such situations, according to the ruling, the imposition of reasonable restrictions under constitutional and statutory law is considered justified. The court concluded that the defendants had crossed the permitted legal limits through their tweets, retweets and online publications, thereby committing crimes under Articles 9, 10 and 26-A of the PECA.
The court further observed that both accused had expressed opinions in favor of Mahrang Baloch, described in the judgment as a proscribed individual. The defense had argued that the mere expression of opinions about a proscribed person did not constitute a crime under Article 9 of the PECA.
“This court does not agree with the arguments of the defense lawyers because glorification has been defined in 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 Article 9 of PECA”
The order added that under Article 10 of the PECA, any person who commits or threatens to commit an offense under Article 9 with the intention of furthering the objectives of prohibited organizations or individuals is subject to punishment.
“It now remains to be seen whether the defendants promoted with their tweets, retweets and posts the agenda of proscribed individuals or organizations.”
The court noted that the defendants had called Pakistan a “terrorist state” in their tweets, a designation that, according to the order, officially applies only to four countries: Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria.
He noted that both the accused are lawyers by profession and are therefore 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, a claim 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 evidence stage the defendants maintained that their actions were protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. While recognizing that Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression, the court held that such freedom remains subject to reasonable restrictions under the law.
The judgment further noted that there is a general international consensus that an accused’s right 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) when the accused is removed from court for disrupting the proceedings and the prosecution or the court decides to continue in his absence; and ii) when the accused does not appear at the trial (or stops attending mid-trial) and the prosecution or the court decides to continue in his absence.”
In the first scenario, the ruling states, a disruptive defendant can be removed from office for abusing the right to be present.
“In a case against the United Kingdom, the European Commission of Human Rights held 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 arises when the defendant fails to appear at trial. In this case, a decision to continue in absentia will only be legal if the prosecution can demonstrate that the defendant waived his right to be present. The question of what constitutes a legitimate waiver and what evidence the State must present to demonstrate that waiver is the subject of much of the jurisprudence surrounding default proceedings,” the ruling states.
‘Assault on justice’
Commenting on the verdict, former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar stated that Imaan and Hadi were convicted and sentenced for “the peaceful defense of human rights”.
“This verdict is an assault on justice and the rule of law. Legal expression has been criminalized. Constitutional rights established in 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 were ignored.
Calling it a new low for the judiciary, Khokhar said the country was witnessing “a transition from a dark hour to a pitch black era”.
He also maintained that independent observers, both at home and abroad, considered the “trial and sentencing” to be predetermined, prejudged and outsourced.
