Human rights lawyer couple sentenced to 10 years’ prison in Pakistan

The couple were sentenced over an alleged security breach in Islamabad during England’s cricket tour of Pakistan. Prosecutors said they removed road barriers and obstructed police officers. Mazari and Chattha denied the accusations. The case matters because the court used Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, bringing severe penalties to conduct the couple described as part of their peaceful resistance.

The incident happened on 25 October 2024 at Zero Point, a major cloverleaf junction. The road had been designated for England’s security convoy. Each defendant received 10 years under the Anti-Terrorism Act. They also received one-year and two-year terms for obstructing and using force against public servants. Those additional terms will run at the same time.

The court also fined each person 200,000 Pakistani rupees. Amnesty International said the couple were denied an open and fair trial. Mazari and Chattha have faced other criminal cases linked to activism, criticism of the military, and an alleged protest.

For the latest case, each person received 10 years under the Anti-Terrorism Act. They also received one-year and two-year sentences for obstructing and using force against public servants. Because the court ordered these sentences to run concurrently, the terms overlap instead of being added together. The latest case therefore does not create 13 separate years.

Concurrent sentencing means the longest relevant sentence determines the prison time for those convictions. Here, the 10-year term is longer than the additional one-year and two-year terms. The court also imposed a fine of 200,000 Pakistani rupees on each defendant. The article does not state a final release date.

The couple had previously received sentences of up to 17 years over social media posts criticising the military. The Supreme Court suspended those sentences and granted bail. Police then arrested them again in separate cases, so the suspension did not immediately end their imprisonment.

Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act is a national law designed to punish terrorism and conduct authorities classify as threatening public security. The article identifies it as the legal basis for the couple’s main 10-year sentences. Using this law makes the case more serious than an ordinary road or public-order dispute.

Prosecutors said Mazari and Chattha removed barriers from a road reserved for England’s security convoy. They also accused the couple of obstructing police at Zero Point in Islamabad on 25 October 2024. The court imposed 10 years under the Act, plus separate terms for obstructing and using force against public servants.

The couple denied the charges and described themselves as prisoners of conscience. Amnesty International criticised the proceedings and said they lacked an open and fair trial. The case therefore raises two linked issues: how broadly security laws are applied, and whether defendants receive proper legal safeguards.

The alleged incident took place while England’s cricket team was touring Pakistan. It happened on 25 October 2024 in Islamabad. The location was Zero Point, a major cloverleaf road junction. The case focused on whether the couple interfered with security arrangements for the visiting team.

Prosecutors said the road had been designated for England’s security convoy. They accused Mazari and Chattha of removing barriers from that road and obstructing police officers. The court treated the allegations as serious enough for convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, along with additional charges involving public servants.

Mazari and Chattha denied the allegations. Each received 10 years under the Anti-Terrorism Act, plus one-year and two-year terms for obstructing and using force against public servants. The court ordered all those sentences to run concurrently and fined each defendant 200,000 Pakistani rupees.

An open trial allows the public and observers to see how evidence and arguments are handled. It supports confidence that judges are acting fairly and that defendants can participate properly. Moving hearings inside a prison can limit public access and independent scrutiny. A cage-like structure may also make defendants appear dangerous before guilt is fairly established.

In this case, Mazari and Chattha were kept in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. Amnesty International said the trial had been moved inside the prison and that the couple remained behind a cage-like structure during hearings. The organisation argued that these arrangements formed part of a process that was not open or fair.

These conditions do not by themselves prove the convictions were legally invalid. However, they intensify concerns about transparency, dignity, and equality before the law. Amnesty called the convictions an indictment of Pakistan’s justice system and said the couple were targeted for human rights work and protected expression.

Mazari and Chattha have faced several cases in recent months. They were arrested on 23 January over an alleged altercation outside the Islamabad High Court. The next day, they received sentences of up to 17 years under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act for social media posts criticising the military.

The Supreme Court suspended those sentences and granted bail on 17 September. Police arrested them again the same day in another case linked to a March 2025 protest. They were accused there of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads. The article also reports the newer case over the 2024 cricket security incident.

Because each arrest involved a separate case, suspending the earlier sentences did not automatically end their custody. They have remained in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail for several months. The latest convictions add 10-year terms, while Amnesty International continues to challenge the fairness of the proceedings.

Freedom of expression allows people to criticise governments and powerful institutions. Peaceful assembly lets them join protests and advocate for change without violence. An independent legal system protects both rights by requiring evidence, fair hearings, and equal treatment. These safeguards are especially important for lawyers who represent vulnerable people and challenge official abuses.

The couple’s case shows why these protections matter. They are prominent human rights lawyers who have represented activists, journalists, and marginalised communities facing enforced disappearances. They were also convicted over social media posts criticising the military and accused in a protest case involving slogans and blocked roads.

Amnesty International said they were targeted for refusing to stop their human rights work and for exercising expression and peaceful assembly rights. The organisation also criticised the prison trial. If courts are not independent and open, critics may fear speaking, lawyers may avoid difficult cases, and public accountability can weaken.