Who are Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha? Here's why Pakistan jailed the human rights lawyer couple for 10 years

Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha are Pakistani lawyers and human rights advocates. They are prominent because their legal work focuses on alleged abuses, enforced disappearances, political activism, minority rights and freedom of expression. Their cases often bring them into conflict with authorities.

Mazari has represented journalists, activists and families seeking information about relatives allegedly detained by security agencies. She has also openly criticised Pakistan’s military establishment. Chattha has worked alongside her, including in cases that led to criminal proceedings against both lawyers. Mazari is also the daughter of Shireen Mazari, a former federal minister for human rights.

Their work has gained international recognition. In 2026, the Ludovic-Trarieux International Human Rights Prize was jointly awarded to Mazari and Chattha. Their prominence now carries a serious cost: both have been sentenced to 10 years in prison in a case they say is connected to their human rights work and criticism of powerful state institutions.

The case began with a roadblock in Islamabad during England’s cricket tour of Pakistan in October 2024. Security barriers had been placed along routes designated for the visiting team. The incident became nationally significant because the authorities treated it as a threat to a high-profile security operation, not merely a traffic dispute.

According to prosecutors, Mazari and Chattha removed some barriers, obstructed police personnel and interfered with security arrangements. They alleged that the conduct placed the England team at risk and could encourage public unrest. Mazari disputed that account, saying police stopped them while she was travelling to court to represent a client.

The case was registered at Kohsar police station in March 2025. The couple pleaded not guilty. Proceedings took place at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail, where the court recorded statements from seven prosecution witnesses. On 29 October 2026, an anti-terrorism judge convicted them and imposed 10-year terms.

Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act is a special criminal law for conduct considered connected to terrorism or serious threats to public order and security. Its use can bring a case before an anti-terrorism court rather than an ordinary criminal court. This matters because terrorism provisions can carry severe penalties and give an incident a far more serious legal meaning.

The article does not provide the full wording of Section 7(h). It states that the court convicted Mazari and Chattha under that provision and sentenced each to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court said their conduct endangered the England cricket team’s security and indicated an intention to create a sense of terror.

The ruling shows how the law was applied here. The judgement also described the underlying event as apparently ordinary barrier removal. That contrast is central to the controversy: critics question whether the terrorism law and punishment were proportionate to the conduct described.

The latest convictions impose 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on Mazari and Chattha under the Anti-Terrorism Act. They also received one year under Penal Code Section 186 and two years under Section 353, plus fines. Because those additional sentences run concurrently, they do not add another three years to the 10-year terms.

The comparison with their earlier case is important. They were previously sentenced to 17 years each over social media posts. Pakistan’s Supreme Court suspended those sentences in September. The article describes that case as separate from the road-barrier prosecution, so the two punishments arise from different proceedings.

The latest sentence is therefore lower in stated length than the earlier 17-year sentence, but it remains extremely severe. The article does not say whether the suspended earlier sentences were finally cancelled. It records continuing legal pressure on the couple, who deny the charges and describe themselves as prisoners of conscience.

The article does not state whether Mazari and Chattha have appealed the latest convictions or whether a higher court has suspended them. In general, an appeal asks a higher court to review the conviction, sentence or both. Until a court grants relief or overturns the decision, the original judgment remains legally operative, although imprisonment may be stayed or suspended.

A higher court could uphold the convictions, reduce the sentences, order a retrial or overturn the findings. If it overturns the convictions, the legal basis for serving those sentences would normally disappear. If it only changes the sentence, the conviction could remain while the punishment is reduced.

Their earlier case shows that review can have an immediate practical effect: Pakistan’s Supreme Court suspended their separate 17-year sentences in September. That suspension did not, according to the article, resolve the latest case. Their legal status therefore depends on future court orders, which the article does not report.

A barrier-removal incident can become terrorism-related when prosecutors and a court connect it to a broader danger to public security. The key issue is not only the physical act. It is the alleged purpose, setting and consequences, especially where authorities claim that conduct threatens a protected target or creates fear and disorder.

Here, the prosecution said Mazari and Chattha interfered with security arrangements for England’s cricket team, obstructed police and put the team at risk. The court said the incident indicated an intention to create a sense of terror. Those findings supplied the mechanism for applying the Anti-Terrorism Act alongside ordinary Penal Code provisions.

The classification remains contested because the judgement also described the actual event as apparently ordinary barrier removal. The couple denied the charges, and human rights organisations, lawyers and activists questioned the punishment and proceedings. The case therefore turns on whether the alleged security risk and intent justify terrorism charges.

A fair trial means that defendants are heard by an independent and impartial court under known legal rules. They should receive the charges, have legal representation, challenge evidence, question witnesses and obtain a reasoned decision. The process must not be shaped by political pressure or punishment for lawful criticism.

Judicial independence is especially important when the defendants are lawyers who challenge powerful institutions. Mazari has represented journalists, activists, minorities and families seeking information about alleged detainees. She has also criticised Pakistan’s military establishment. If courts are not independent, prosecutions could discourage lawyers from defending unpopular clients or exposing alleged abuses.

The article says the couple denied the charges and called themselves prisoners of conscience. Human rights organisations, lawyers and activists questioned the severity of the punishment and fairness of the proceedings. The case therefore raises a broader concern: whether courts can protect legal rights and apply security laws fairly when defendants directly criticise state power.