As the legal battle unfolds in higher courts, rights organisations and legal associations are urging authorities to uphold constitutional guarantees, ensure fair procedures, and protect the independence of the legal profession.
Pakistan is facing mounting criticism at home and abroad over what lawyers, rights groups and civil society organisations describe as judicial persecution of human rights lawyers who have criticised the country’s powerful military establishment. The case has sparked alarm about shrinking civic space, erosion of rule of law and misuse of cybercrime legislation to criminalise dissent.
Lawyers Targeted Under Cybercrime Law
The controversy centres on human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband and fellow lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, who were formally indicted late in October under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016 for social media posts critical of the military’s conduct on issues including forced disappearances and alleged abuses in provinces such as Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Authorities say the posts, shared on X and other platforms between 2021 and 2025, “incited linguistic divisions” and suggested the armed forces were involved in terrorism – allegations both lawyers reject.
PECA, originally drafted to tackle cybercrime, carries penalties ranging from hefty fines to up to 14 years in prison – a sentence both face if convicted.
Fair-Trial Concerns and Procedural Irregularities
The prosecution’s handling of the case has drawn sharp rebukes from legal experts and rights organisations. Defence teams and international observers have pointed to serious procedural irregularities that they say undermine principles of fair trial and due process. These include courts proceeding with witness testimony in the lawyers’ absence, rapid scheduling of hearings without adequate notice, and impediments to securing independent legal representation.
In one notable instance, defence lawyers argued that evidence was recorded without the presence of Mazari-Hazir or Chattha, a violation of Pakistan’s criminal procedure code requiring the accused to be present when evidence is taken.
Such practices, rights bodies say, reflect broader misuse of legal tools to intimidate legal professionals and discourage criticism of powerful state institutions.
Supreme Court Intervenes
Responding to due-process concerns, Pakistan’s Supreme Court in December ordered a temporary halt to proceedings in the trial court, directing that the Islamabad High Court first hear the couple’s pending revision petition. The Supreme Court’s move followed arguments that lower courts had ignored basic safeguards, including requests to re-record witness statements properly.
The stay on trial-court proceedings delays further hearings previously scheduled for mid-December and marks a rare check on the prosecution’s momentum in the case.
Rights Groups Decry “Weaponisation” of Law
International and domestic human rights organisations have condemned the prosecution as a form of judicial harassment. A coalition of rights bodies, including Front Line Defenders and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, issued a joint statement warning that the case represents a troubling pattern of reprisals against lawyers and activists documenting abuses and speaking out on sensitive issues.
These groups argue that using cybercrime legislation to penalise criticism contravenes Pakistan’s obligations under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and international covenants protecting freedom of expression and fair trial rights. They have called on the government to withdraw all charges against the couple and to repeal or reform provisions of PECA that enable such prosecutions.
Broader Backlash and Public Support
The case has ignited public debate within Pakistan’s legal community and civil society. Lawyers’ associations and student groups have issued statements and solidarity messages, decrying the use of broadly framed legislation to silence legal defenders and erode democratic space. Some student organisations in Islamabad have highlighted the implications for minority rights and civic freedoms.
Supporters of Mazari-Hazir and Chattha argue that their legal work – including advocacy for victims of state violence and representation of marginalised clients – is being unfairly targeted under the guise of cybercrime enforcement.
A Flashpoint in Civil-Military Dynamics
The legal case comes against a backdrop of longstanding tensions between Pakistan’s civil society and its military establishment, one of the country’s most powerful institutions. Critics have long accused the military of exerting undue influence over political and judicial affairs, a charge Islamabad authorities routinely deny.
For civil liberties advocates, the trial of lawyers for expressing critical views raises the spectre of a chilling effect on free speech and legal advocacy, hampering efforts to hold institutions to account and defend fundamental rights.
As the legal battle unfolds in higher courts, rights organisations and legal associations are urging authorities to uphold constitutional guarantees, ensure fair procedures, and protect the independence of the legal profession – essential tenets of democratic governance.
Image: ChatGPT
