• Already in Adiala prison, lawyer couple convicted on three charges for controversial tweets
• Shireen terms verdict ‘illegal’, PTI’s Ayub says legal system is dead
• Minister, PM’s aide defend judgement

ISLAMABAD: A sessions court sentenced lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse, Hadi Ali Chattha, to a total of 17 years in prison on multiple charges in a case linked to social media posts, sparking outrage among rights groups, opposition parties, and other segments of society on Saturday.

The written order by Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka said the prosecution had proved its case against Ms Mazari and Mr Chattha under Sections 9 (glorification of an offence), 10 (cyberterrorism) and 26-A (false information) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). Under Section 9 of Peca, both were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs5 million each, with an additional year in default.For Section 10, they were each handed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs30m, with two more years in default. Under Section 26-A, they received two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs1m each, with six months’ additional jail time in case of non-payment. All sentences will run concurrently.

The order noted that the convicts were present in custody in another case via video link and directed that they be kept in jail to serve their sentences. Both were granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure —allowing the period of detention to be considered as part of the sentence.

The lawyer couple were already on judicial remand at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail after they were arrested in Islamabad in connection with a separate case on Friday.

Judgement

Judge Majoka referred to an August 2025 complaint by Sub-Inspector Sharooz Riaz alleging that Ms Mazari disseminated “offensive, misleading and anti-state content” on social media with Mr Chattha’s “active connivance”.

The order read that her posts promoted narratives “aligned with terrorist groups and proscribed organisations and individuals, incited ethnic hatred, undermined trust in state institutions” and portrayed the armed forces as responsible for terrorism and enforced disappearances”.

According to the order, tweets posted between 2021 and 2025 reflected the agenda of banned outfits, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The judge observed that both accused, being advocates, knowingly referred to Pakistan as a “terrorist state”, “which in fact is the agenda of BLA and TTP”.

The court held that the accused portrayed the armed forces as being responsible for the acts of terrorism in the country and glorified banned organisations as well as individuals through tweets, retweets and shared content, including posts supporting the BLA, TTP, Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement and individuals such as Mahrang Baloch, Ali Wazir and Manzoor Pashteen. It added that five prosecution witnesses were examined, including National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) Reporting Centre Assistant Director Imran Haider and the complainant.

While referring to posts by Ms Mazari in support of Mahrang Baloch and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, the court noted that several of these were reposted by Mr Chattha.

Rejecting the defence’s argument that merely expressing views about proscribed individuals did not amount to an offence, the judge noted that Peca defined glorification as “any form of praise or celebration” of proscribed organisations or individuals.

The order further added that the accused had damaged public trust in state institutions and spread unsubstantiated claims of enforced disappearances, making them liable under Peca.

It noted that Ms Mazari had alleged the existence of state-run torture cells and claimed that repression and violence were standard responses to peaceful Baloch activism, which the court said attracted liability under Section 10 of Peca.

On the charge of spreading false information, the judge observed that the accused had provided no proof to support claims of enforced disappearances, yet repeatedly accused the state of being responsible for them in their social media posts.

Earlier on Saturday, the couple briefly appeared via video link before Majoka’s court in Islamabad. However, court proceedings were disrupted when the couple boycotted the hearing, following which the court reserved its order.

The case pertaining to controversial social media posts stems from a complaint filed on Aug 12, 2025 at the NCCIA in Islamabad.

The NCCIA complaint accused Ms Mazari of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations”, while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.

The FIR of the case alleged that the two held security forces responsible for cases of missing persons in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

It also stated that they had portrayed the armed forces as ineffective against proscribed groups, including the BLA and TTP. Judge Majoka issued arrest warrants for the couple on Nov 5, 2025.

Criticism

The couple’s arrest on Friday prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians, and journalists, who stressed their right to a fair trial.

Amnesty International noted the “lack of adherence to due process” and said these were “retaliatory cases aimed solely at silencing Ms Mazari and Mr Chattha for their human rights work and dissent”.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) also condemned the arrests, terming the case a “tool to harass, intimidate and ultimately muzzle dissent”.

Ms Mazari’s mother Shireen Mazari, a former human rights minister, reacted to the sentencing by terming it “totally illegal”.

“Their [transfer application] is still pending in [Islamabad High Court] so legally judge cannot pass judgement till [transfer application] is heard,” she contended.

In another post, she said: “They got their pound of flesh [through] an order passed illegally but the emasculated men don’t give a damn. It was always about ‘off with their heads.”

In a statement, opposition alliance Tehreek Tahafuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan (TTAP) also slammed the sentencing of the couple, claiming that the convictions followed an “unjust and non-independent trial”, describing the sentences as “excessive, discriminatory and politically motivated”.

TTAP spokesperson Akhunzada Hussain Yousafzai said the verdict “violated the fundamental principles of judicial independence and reflected a climate of fear and pressure within the judiciary”.

The alliance demanded the immediate release of the couple and called for the restoration of judicial independence in accordance with the Constitution.

Senate opposition leader Allama Raja Nasir Abbas called the verdict “a grave miscarriage of justice”.

“These human rights lawyers were convicted under Peca solely for social media posts criticising what they saw as state abuses and advocating for marginalised communities,” he said.

PTI leader Omar Ayub Khan noted that the “kangaroo court” conviction of the couple proved that “the legal system in Pakistan is dead”.

“Members of the judiciary, from the highest to the lowest forum should hang their heads in shame,” he said.

“The judiciary is a willing accessory and accomplice with the illegally imposed fascist regime ruling Pakistan,” he added.

Verdict defended

Meanwhile, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar hailed the verdict, quipping on X: “As you sow, so shall you reap!” He added: “The first official and final result of Peca. One should fear God,”.

Speaking to Geo News, Rana Sanaullah, the prime minister’s adviser on political affairs, rejected claims that the trial was unfair, saying the accused were given multiple opportunities for cross-examination but repeatedly “insulted the court”.

He said he respected Ms Mazari as a lawyer and viewed her as a daughter or younger sister, but criticised what he described as attacks on the armed forces and those who “sacrifice their lives for the country”.

“No one should be allowed to go to such lengths,” he said.

Mr Sanaullah added that Ms Mazari was free to criticise the government, constitutional amendments and alleged attempts to curb judicial independence.

However, he said such criticism should be tempered by the prevailing security situation, and maintained that allegations of an unfair trial were “not facts”, claiming he had personally enquired about the rights given to the couple during the proceedings.

Ikram Junaidi in Islamabad also contributed to this report

Published in Dawn, January 25th, 2026