Pakistan Human Rights Lawyers Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison

Court Verdict

An antiterrorism court in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, has sentenced prominent human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to 10 years in prison. The ruling, delivered by Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra at Adiala prison, stems from an October 2024 incident where the couple removed road barriers designated for the England and Wales Cricket team's transit route in Islamabad.

Charges and Defence

The court found the couple guilty of endangering the security of the visiting cricket team and intending to create terror. Interestingly, the written judgement acknowledged that the act itself involved the removal of a barrier, which it described as an "ordinary type of incident." The couple had entered a plea of not guilty to charges of obstructing police and inciting public interest.

In statements reported by international news agencies, the couple rejected the terrorism charges, describing themselves as "prisoners of conscience." They maintained that the prosecution is a politically motivated attempt to suppress their human rights advocacy and discourage dissent.

Procedural Criticisms

• Due Process Concerns: Shireen Mazari, the mother of Imaan Mazari, characterized the proceedings as a "sham trial," citing a lack of due process, denial of private counsel, and the withholding of key legal documents.
• Rights Groups: Amnesty International has criticized the verdict, stating that the use of anti-terrorism laws against human rights activists reflects a failure of the judicial system to uphold fair trial standards.

Broader Context

The couple has been in custody since January 2026, initially facing sentences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act for social media activities—a case in which their sentences were previously suspended by the Supreme Court. The Pakistani government, represented by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, maintains that the nation's judiciary operates independently. The defence team has indicated plans to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.