Lawyer of Junaid Hafeez, a Pakistai scholar imprisoned for 13 years, is hopeful for his release

Junaid Hafeez was sentenced to death in 2019 after a trial lasting years. He appealed in 2020, but the Lahore High Court did not begin hearing the case until September 22, 2026. The appeal matters because a trial-court death sentence cannot become final without high-court scrutiny.

The two-judge bench issued notices to the prosecution and the complainant. It also requested arguments about the electronic evidence, including Facebook material attributed to Hafeez. His lawyer, Saif-ul-Malook, said Hafeez has remained intellectually active in prison and that he is hopeful this bench may release him.

Hafeez’s father believes his son was falsely accused and targeted by Islamist students. The next hearing is scheduled for October 10. Release is possible, but it depends on how the judges assess the evidence and legal arguments. Years of threats and delays make the outcome and timing uncertain.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are criminal provisions that punish conduct considered insulting to Islam or sacred religious figures. In Hafeez’s case, prosecutors allege that he used a fake Facebook profile to insult the Prophet Muhammad. The laws matter because they can lead to severe punishment, including a death sentence.

Hafeez was accused of making the alleged comments in a closed Facebook group called “So-Called Liberals of Pakistan.” His lawyer and father say he was targeted and falsely accused. The court must therefore consider both the alleged religious insult and whether the digital material reliably connects Hafeez to it.

The article says international critics have condemned Pakistan’s laws because they can be applied arbitrarily and abused. Supporters, such as activist Hafiz Ehtisham Ahmed, argue that removing them could encourage disrespect for religion. The controversy places pressure on courts, lawyers, and the wider justice system.

Hafeez was arrested on March 13, 2013, and the article describes him as having spent 13 years in prison. His trial began in 2014 and continued through repeated delays. A trial court in Multan sentenced him to death in 2019.

He challenged that verdict in 2020. As of September 2026, his appeal had still not been decided, meaning the death sentence had awaited high-court review for about six years. Counting from the 2019 sentence, it had remained unresolved for roughly seven years.

That distinction shows how long every stage has taken. Security concerns moved proceedings to Multan Central Jail, and at least seven judges were transferred during the trial. The appeal is now moving, but the court has not said when it will decide it. The next hearing is due on October 10, leaving Hafeez and his family waiting again.

The Lahore High Court has asked for arguments about the electronic evidence used against Hafeez. This includes Facebook material attributed to him. The judges issued notices to the prosecution and the complainant so the parties can address that evidence during the appeal.

The material matters because the prosecution’s allegation is based on online comments. Hafeez was accused of using a fake Facebook profile to insult the Prophet Muhammad in a closed group. The court must assess whether the material is genuine, whether it can reliably be linked to Hafeez, and what it proves in the case.

The article does not report the court’s final view of the evidence. That assessment could shape the appeal’s outcome. If the judges find the electronic material unreliable or insufficient, they could overturn the conviction. If they accept it, Hafeez’s death sentence may remain in place, subject to further legal review.

An overturned conviction would remove the trial court’s judgment against Hafeez and could allow him to leave prison. His father has repeatedly said the family wants him home. Human Rights Watch has also called for the conviction to be overturned.

The court’s decision will depend on its assessment of the evidence and arguments. It is focusing on electronic material attributed to Hafeez, including Facebook content. The judges must decide whether that material supports the accusation strongly enough to sustain a death sentence. The article does not predict their ruling.

If the high court upholds the conviction, Hafeez would not be released because of this appeal. His death sentence would remain in force at that stage. However, an upheld conviction would not necessarily mean immediate execution; Pakistan’s legal system provides further avenues of review in death-penalty cases. The article emphasizes that high-court scrutiny is required before a trial-court death sentence becomes final.

Blasphemy cases in Pakistan can expose legal officials to serious danger. Human rights groups have documented threats against judges, lawyers, and prosecutors. Those threats matter because officials may fear violence or public backlash when they make decisions involving religious accusations.

The article gives a stark example. Hafeez’s first lawyer, Rashid Rehman, was shot dead in his Multan office in May 2014. He had reportedly received threats connected with the case. At least seven judges were also transferred during the trial, while proceedings were moved to Multan Central Jail because of security concerns.

These pressures can delay hearings and encourage caution. Pakistani policy analyst Raza Rumi said even acquittals or procedural rulings can trigger threats and backlash. As a result, judges may take longer to act, and legal independence can suffer. Hafeez’s appeal shows that security concerns affect not only courtroom safety, but also how quickly justice is delivered.

A high-court appeal is a legal review of a lower court’s decision. It is not normally a completely new trial. The judges examine the trial record, the evidence, and the arguments about legal or procedural errors. In a death-penalty case, this review is especially important because the punishment is irreversible.

In Hafeez’s appeal, the Lahore High Court issued notices to the prosecution and complainant. It asked for arguments about electronic evidence, including Facebook material attributed to Hafeez. This process gives both sides an opportunity to respond before the judges decide whether the conviction is supported.

The article states that a trial-court death sentence does not become final without high-court scrutiny. The high court could overturn the conviction and release Hafeez, or uphold it. Due-process protections require careful examination rather than automatic confirmation. Yet threats and security concerns can slow proceedings and make judges cautious, as Hafeez’s prolonged case demonstrates.