On Saturday, a trial court in Islamabad sentenced human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha to 17 years’ imprisonment each under controversial cybercrime laws over a series of social media posts, highlighting the troubling trajectory of tolerance for dissent in the country.
The charges against Mazari and Chattha stem from several posts on X in which they criticized state institutions, wrote about alleged human rights abuses, and expressed solidarity with Baloch activists. In his order, Judge Afzal Majoka has found them guilty under sections 9 (glorification of an offense), 10 (cyberterrorism), and 26-A (false and fake information) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, declaring their posts an attempt to malign Pakistan’s institutions and incite societal divisions.
Amidst mounting public outcry over the convictions, the government has argued they represent a lawful application of PECA and aim to clamp down on disinformation and protect state integrity. Authorities have further claimed the couple’s online conduct crossed the line from criticism into unlawful speech under PECA, insisting courts must not tolerate public statements deemed to advance hostile agendas. This does not negate the obvious high-handedness employed by the judiciary in sentencing Mazari and Chattha.
In a statement, Amnesty International denounced the detentions as “the latest escalation in a sustained campaign of judicial harassment and intimidation by the Pakistani authorities,” highlighting reports of forceful arrests without due process and a troubling pattern of targeting dissenting voices. Similarly, the International Bar Association, Lawyers for Lawyers, and the Law Society of England and Wales have issued a joint statement expressing deep concern over the legal proceedings amounting to retaliation against legitimate exercise of free expression and legal work. The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and allied groups have sought an end to what they describe as ongoing judicial harassment. Domestic legal bodies such as the Islamabad Bar Association and members of the Pakistan Bar Council have also condemned the arrests as violations of fundamental rights, calling for the immediate release of the couple and an independent inquiry into police conduct during their arrest.
Arguably, elements within Pakistan’s legal and political establishment may perceive some of the language employed by Mazari and Chattha, including critical descriptions of state institutions, as provocative or problematic. Polarization within Pakistani society has made debates on the bounds of responsible public discourse commonplace. However, and this cannot be emphasized enough, contentious speech is not a crime. Democracies globally tolerate harsh criticism of the state, its policies, and its institutions as a necessary element of the fundamental right to free expression, recognizing that criminalizing such speech sets a dangerous precedent of penalizing dissent.
The detention of the activist lawyers is more than mere punishment for controversial posts: it represents a broader trend of constraining public debate, undermining trust in judicial independence, and intimidating those who stand up for human rights. Such actions set disastrous precedents for freedom of speech, with far-reaching consequences that could play out for years to come.
It is time for our rulers to recognize that dissent is the hallmark of democracy, not an obstacle to tear down.