Pakistan rights activist Imaan Mazari and husband jailed for 10 years

Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, prominent human rights lawyers in Pakistan, were sentenced to 10 years in prison each. An antiterrorism court found them guilty of terrorism-related charges. The case matters because the couple said their prosecution was retaliation for their human rights work and an attempt to intimidate other critics.

The charges came from an October 2024 incident in Islamabad. The couple removed road barriers along a route designated for the touring England and Wales cricket team. Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra said the act put the team’s security at risk and showed an intention to create terror. The judgment also called the breach an ordinary removal of a barrier.

The couple pleaded not guilty and called themselves “prisoners of conscience.” They have remained in custody since January 23 in another case involving social media posts. Their relatives and Amnesty International condemned the trial, while Pakistan’s law minister has said the judiciary is independent.

In October 2024, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha removed road barriers in Islamabad. The barriers stood along a route designated for the touring England and Wales cricket team. Authorities treated the incident as a security breach and later prosecuted the couple under terrorism-related provisions. The surprising feature is the gap between the physical act and the severe charge.

The court’s reasoning focused on the alleged security risk. Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra wrote that putting the team’s security at risk showed an intention and objective to create a sense of terror. The couple were also accused of obstructing police and inciting public interest. They denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

The judgment itself acknowledged that the breach was “a very common nature ordinary type of incident” involving removal of a barrier. The couple said the prosecution targeted their human rights advocacy. Their relatives and Amnesty International described the case as politically motivated, while the government maintains that Pakistan’s judiciary is independent.

An antiterrorism court is a specialized court that hears cases brought under laws addressing terrorism and related threats. Such laws can cover more than attacks that cause physical harm. Authorities may argue that an act threatened public safety, targeted security, or was intended to create fear. Whether that reasoning is justified must be tested through a fair trial and evidence.

Here, the couple removed road barriers on a route assigned to the England and Wales cricket team. The judge said this put the team’s security at risk and “clearly” showed an objective to create a sense of terror. The couple were therefore convicted on terrorism-related charges, even though the judgment described the breach as an ordinary barrier removal.

That contrast drives the controversy. Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha said they were targeted for human rights work. Amnesty International said anti-terrorism charges were being used to punish their advocacy. The government’s law minister has repeatedly said Pakistan’s judiciary is independent.

The punishments are severe because the couple received 10 years in prison in the security-breach case, while a lower court had previously sentenced each of them to 17 years under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The article does not state that these sentences must be added together, so the figures should not automatically be treated as a 44-year total.

The first case concerned the couple’s social media posts. Critics say the cybercrime law is designed to silence online opposition to the government. The Supreme Court later suspended those 17-year sentences. On the same day, however, police re-arrested Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the separate road-barrier case.

This sequence has made the punishment appear especially coercive to their supporters. Amnesty International said the re-arrest showed an effort to punish the couple for human rights work. The couple remain in custody, while their defence says it will petition the Supreme Court against the 10-year verdict.

When a court suspends a sentence, the punishment in that particular case is put on hold, often while an appeal or further legal review proceeds. Suspension is not the same as a full acquittal. A defendant may still face lawful detention if authorities rely on a different case, although that new detention must also follow due process.

That is what happened here. The Supreme Court suspended the 17-year sentences imposed over Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha’s social media posts. Police re-arrested them the same day in the separate security-breach case involving road barriers on the England and Wales cricket team’s route.

The practical result was that the couple did not leave custody despite the suspension. Amnesty International said the re-arrest dispelled any pretence that the prosecution was unrelated to their human rights work. Their defence has challenged the newer 10-year convictions, while Pakistan’s law minister says the judiciary is independent.

Due process requires authorities to follow fair, predictable legal procedures before restricting someone’s liberty. A fair trial generally includes an impartial court, notice of the accusations, access to evidence and key documents, and a real opportunity to defend oneself with legal representation. These safeguards matter most when charges carry long prison sentences or involve politically sensitive speech.

The couple’s mother, Shireen Mazari, called the proceeding a sham trial without due process. She said Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha were not permitted to defend themselves through their own lawyer and were not given key legal documents. The article also says their trial took place inside Adiala prison.

Amnesty International called the convictions an indictment of Pakistan’s justice system. Its representative said the case tested the judiciary’s ability to uphold justice and fair-trial rights, and that it failed badly. The defence plans to petition the Supreme Court, leaving the higher court to consider these complaints.

An independent judiciary is supposed to apply the law without taking instructions from government authorities, security agencies, or political interests. It should examine evidence objectively, protect defendants’ procedural rights, and reject charges that are unsupported or abusive. This role is especially important when defendants are human rights activists or other critics of powerful institutions.

In this case, the court accepted the argument that removing barriers near the cricket team’s route created a security risk and a sense of terror. Yet the judgment also described the incident as an ordinary barrier removal. The couple said the prosecution was meant to make an example of people opposing tyranny and injustice.

Their relatives and Amnesty International said the process was politically motivated and lacked fairness. Amnesty described the legal system as weaponised against critical voices. Pakistan’s law minister, Azam Nazeer Tarar, has repeatedly said the judiciary is independent. The Supreme Court will be asked to review the verdict, according to the defence.