"The legal system in Pakistan appears to be in a state of crisis": Outcry follows the sentencing of Imaan and Hadi over social media posts
On Saturday, a sessions court delivered a shocking verdict, sentencing attorney Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her partner, Hadi Ali Chattha, to a cumulative prison term of 17 years on several charges related to their contentious social media activity. This ruling came just one day after their arrest in Islamabad.
The written judgment accused Imaan of "repeatedly distributing highly offensive, misleading, and anti-state content on social media," asserting that Hadi was complicit in these actions.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Imaan's tweets, which spanned from 2021 to 2025, appeared to promote the agendas of the banned Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
The sentencing has sparked outrage among lawyers, activists, and political figures. Here’s a collection of their responses:
‘Entirely unlawful’
Digital rights advocate Usama Khilji condemned the ruling as “entirely unlawful, unconstitutional, and unfounded,” emphasizing that it lacks any basis in due process, particularly since a transfer application regarding the case is pending in the high court. He criticized the sentencing of human rights attorneys over alleged violations of tweet rights, stating it makes Pakistan a subject of ridicule on the global stage.
‘Judge lacks authority’
Lawyer Jibran Nasir asserted that Judge Afzal Majoka lacked the jurisdiction to convict Imaan and Hadi, as he was expressly forbidden from doing so pending the transfer request for their case. “We submitted this transfer application on December 5, 2025, seeking to move the trial away from Judge Majoka’s court, but it has yet to receive a hearing or decision,” he explained.
Nasir further expressed that the legitimacy of the judge's findings is irrelevant, as the fundamental legal protocol has been disregarded. "This act by Judge Afzal Majoka is coram non judice—meaning it lacks judicial authority; it is void and not worth the paper it is inscribed on." He argued that the trial itself amounted to a sham and severely compromised the couple's right to a fair trial.
“Regardless of the judge's intent—whether out of contempt, incompetence, or undue pressure—the law's clear directives were overlooked,” he commented. “No higher court can justify this, even post the 27th Amendment. Imaan and Hadi have once again succeeded in revealing the regime’s true nature.”
‘A stain on democracy and justice’
The Tehreek Tahafuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan (TTAP) denounced the harsh sentences, describing them as the result of "unjust and non-independent trials." Their statement, shared on X, claimed the ruling contradicts fundamental judicial principles and reflects a climate of fear within the judiciary, where political agendas overshadow genuine justice.
The TTAP characterized the sentences as a "disturbing reflection of the compromised judicial framework" that emerged following the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments, which effectively diminished the judiciary's independence and subjected it to political pressures, leading to decisions that cater to the interests of those in power rather than justice itself. They called for the immediate release of Imaan and Hadi.
‘Shocking ruling’
Attorney Reema Omar described the judgment against Imaan and Hadi as "shocking" and alarming for anyone who values dissent and freedom of expression. PTI leader Omar Ayub Khan remarked that the “kangaroo court” conviction illustrates that “the legal system in Pakistan is dead.” He urged members of the judiciary at all levels to reflect on their complicity in this injustice, criticizing them as unwitting accomplices to the oppressive regime that currently governs Pakistan.
‘Law and basic decency have crumbled’
Activist Ammar Ali Jan lamented that the couple represents the latest victims of state brutality, emphasizing that their only offense was standing up for the rights of those affected by enforced disappearances and false blasphemy charges. “This regime has obliterated both law and basic decency. If we remain silent, everyone will eventually face similar fates,” he warned.
‘We’ve made ourselves significantly poorer’
Journalist Benazir Shah pointed out that Imaan and Hadi had been defenders of individuals accused of blasphemy and advocates for the families of missing persons, whom she described as some of the most vulnerable and silenced individuals in the country. “By punishing Imaan and Hadi, we have impoverished ourselves—not just morally, but legally as well,” she stated.
‘A clear warning to others’
Veteran journalist Mariana Baabar shared the court order on X, interpreting the lengthy prison sentences as a blatant warning to anyone who dares to challenge or question the state’s actions.
‘The judge will be remembered’
Journalist Azaz Syed remarked that Judge Majoka will be remembered for his rapid delivery of justice that favored the state, humorously noting that he set a new speed record. “Reportedly, [the] judge denied them the right to cross-examine witnesses and did not allow them to present their final statements,” he added, highlighting serious procedural flaws in the trial.
‘Serious miscarriage of justice’
Opposition Senate leader Allama Raja Nasir Abbas decried the verdict as “a serious miscarriage of justice.” He pointed out that these human rights attorneys were convicted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act simply for posting on social media critiques of what they perceived as state abuses and for advocating for marginalized communities.
“The unjust sentences, procedural irregularities, and underlying motivations behind this case reveal a manipulation of the law designed to silence dissenters and intimidate those who stand up for vulnerable groups,” he argued. He concluded by stressing that this ruling sends a chilling message: peaceful advocacy and criticism of power will be met with severe repercussions. Genuine accountability for human rights violations should be prioritized over punishing those who expose such wrongdoings, he expressed hope that the higher courts would provide relief for the lawyers.
