Islamabad, Jan 26: A sessions court in Pakistan has sentenced a prominent lawyer couple, known for representing victims of human rights violations, for social media posts deemed controversial, triggering widespread concern over the shrinking space for dissent in the country.
Human rights lawyers and activists Imaan Zainab-Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, were convicted a day after their arrest on January 23, following the resurfacing of a previously undisclosed case. The verdict has drawn sharp criticism from legal and civil rights circles, with observers warning that it sends a chilling message to lawyers, journalists and ordinary citizens.
According to an editorial in Pakistan’s leading daily Dawn, the couple is widely respected for taking up sensitive cases involving enforced disappearances, blasphemy accusations and issues related to judicial independence. They have often represented individuals unable to afford legal counsel or navigate what critics describe as a fractured justice system.
The case was initiated in July last year after the National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority accused Mazari of “disseminating and propagating narratives aligning with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations” through social media posts. Chattha was found complicit for reposting the content, the report said.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka held the couple guilty of ‘glorification of an offence’, ‘cyberterrorism’ and spreading ‘false and fake information’. As per the court order, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and heavy fines. For the first charge, each was awarded five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5 million, followed by 10 years and Rs 30 million each for cyberterrorism, and two years with a Rs 1 million fine for the third offence.
The Dawn editorial observed that one need not examine the content of the posts to grasp the implications of the verdict. It warned that the conviction appears aimed at weakening the legal community’s historic role in resisting authoritarianism and defending constitutional norms.
“If such convictions stand, dissent will not merely be discouraged, it will be criminalised,” the editorial cautioned.
