A court in Pakistan has sentenced prominent human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, fellow lawyer Hadi Chattha, to a combined total of 17 years’ imprisonment in connection with a series of social media posts, a ruling that has drawn sharp criticism from rights advocates and legal observers.
The convictions were entered under Pakistan’s cybercrime legislation, with prosecutors arguing that several online posts amounted to the glorification of a proscribed individual and the publication of content deemed threatening to public order. One post cited by the court called for public support for Mahrang Baloch, who is listed under anti-terrorism regulations, and urged participation in a demonstration demanding justice for detained activists.
The court found that such expressions fell within offences created by law, including provisions criminalizing the praise or promotion of individuals designated under anti-terrorism measures. It further ruled that statements describing Pakistan as a “terrorist state” and allegations accusing state institutions of human rights violations constituted unlawful content capable of advancing the objectives of banned groups.
Further convictions were recorded under provisions penalizing the online dissemination of information considered false or likely to cause fear. These charges related to posts expressing solidarity with detained activists and claims of enforced disappearances, which the court concluded were made without sufficient factual basis.
The lawyers were arrested shortly before sentencing, a development that provoked strong reactions from international human rights organizations. Critics described the arrests and trial as part of a sustained pattern of judicial harassment intended to intimidate human rights defenders and silence critical voices.
Legal and professional bodies have warned that the use of cybercrime laws to prosecute years-old social media content poses serious risks to freedom of expression and the independence of the legal profession. They argue that the case appears aimed at obstructing legitimate legal work and deterring lawyers from publicly challenging state conduct.
The sentencing has intensified debate within Pakistan and internationally over the balance between national security laws and fundamental rights, with observers cautioning that the decision may have a chilling effect on public discourse, online expression, and human rights advocacy in the country.
