Pakistan jails two lawyers for 17 years over old tweets

Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha, a couple who both worked as human rights lawyers in Pakistan, were sentenced to 17 years in prison on January 24, 2026.

What was their crime? Between 2021 and 2025, they tweeted about the Pakistan military abusing people in the abuses of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces. There has been a separatist insurgency in Balochistan for nearly 80 years, alongside persistent allegations by families and human rights groups that the military has carried out enforced disappearances and so-called “kill and dump” cases against people in the region. Authorities deny these claims, describing their actions as counterterrorism operations.

In justifying the hefty sentence, the court cited Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), legislation which was first introduced to combat cybercrime, but is increasingly being weaponized to silence dissent, according to rights advocates.

Mazari, 32, graduated from the University of Edinburgh and has worked extensively on cases involving enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the defense of people accused of blasphemy. She has taken on many of these cases on a voluntary basis. Her mother, Shireen Mazari, served as Pakistan’s human rights minister from August 2018 to April 2022 before leaving politics, reportedly due to pressure from the military.

Chattha worked with the Asma Jahangir Legal Aid Cell, Pakistan’s first and leading legal aid organization providing free legal representation to vulnerable populations, where he defended survivors of sexual violence and individuals facing rape charges or accusations under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. He represented more than a dozen people he maintains were falsely accused. The country’s blasphemy provisions were significantly expanded during the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and have been abused in the subsequent decades.

The couple married in December 2023 and often collaborated on cases that challenged powerful state institutions. They represented Baloch activists, families of missing persons, and journalists facing legal harassment — work that increasingly placed them under scrutiny. The couple denies any wrongdoing and claims they are being targeted for their activism.

The charges and the (lack of) evidence

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), which governs online content and cyber-related offenses, was cited by prosecutors, who charged them under Sections 9, 10, 11, and 26A. Section 10 addresses cyber terrorism. Section 9 targets the glorification of offenses. Section 26A criminalizes spreading false information that harms national security. The complaint was filed by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on August 12, 2025, and the court formally indicted them on October 30, 2025, in connection with their social media activity.

What did they actually say? According to court records, Mazari criticized security forces over enforced disappearances in Balochistan. She put the blame on the military, stating that it was not able to effectively combat armed separatist militant groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Chattha retweeted and amplified some of her posts and also shared content from Mahrang Baloch, a prominent Baloch rights activist, including material linked to a demonstration organized by the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). Prosecutors claimed that these posts echoed narratives associated with banned organizations and undermined public confidence in the military.

The evidence presented in court reportedly consisted of screenshots, reposts of tweets, and witness statements. Four prosecution witnesses testified. Defense lawyers later said they were not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine them. The full text of the social media posts was not publicly disclosed, beyond general descriptions. The proceedings moved quickly, limiting the defense’s ability to prepare its case.

The trial and its flaws

The trial moved from indictment to sentencing in less than three months, while most cases brought under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) take years to complete. This one advanced at an unusual speed.

On January 23, 2026, police arrested Mazari and Chattha as they were driving to court, despite having been granted protective bail by the Islamabad High Court. According to their lawyers, officers used force during the arrest. In subsequent hearings, the judge at times proceeded without producing the accused in court. Mazari was reportedly unwell during parts of the proceedings. The couple boycotted the final sentencing hearing, alleging mistreatment in custody. The judge delivered the verdict in under a minute.

Defense counsel said they were denied full access to case files. At one stage, court-appointed lawyers appeared without the couple’s consent. Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court had pending orders to consider transferring the case, yet the trial court continued with the proceedings.

Pakistan’s bar associations announced a three-day strike in protest. Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists described the trial as a miscarriage of justice. Legal observers pointed to what they said were clear violations of due process. The right to cross-examine witnesses and the right of an accused person to be present at their own trial are cornerstones of a fair hearing in Pakistan. In this case, critics argue, both were curtailed.

PECA as a weapon

When PECA was first introduced in 2016, it was supposed to combat hacking, online fraud, and genuine cybercrimes. Instead, it has become a tool to silence dissent. The law’s vague language allows authorities to prosecute anyone who criticizes the state. Section 10 on cyber terrorism does not require proof of actual terrorism. Section 26A criminalizes the spread of “false information” harmful to national security, yet the law does not clearly define what constitutes falsehood.

Members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), an opposition political party in Pakistan, have been charged with violating the PECA, as have journalists such as Farhan Mallick, Sohrab Barkat, and Ahmad Noorani, as well as human rights activist Jalila Haider. Previous reporting has also documented the use of sedition-related provisions in digital cases, suggesting a pattern in which critics of state institutions are pursued under cybercrime legislation.

The Islamabad High Court has previously raised constitutional concerns about the application of PECA against journalists, noting that freedom of expression and the right to information are protected under Articles 19 and 19A of Pakistan’s Constitution. In one ruling, the court directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to establish clear guidelines before summoning journalists under the law. Those guidelines were never operationalized.

Several journalists — including Asad Ali Toor (2021), Bilal Ghauri (2022), and Absar Alam (2023) — received FIA summonses over YouTube videos critical of the military or addressing sensitive aspects of Pakistan’s political history. A 2021 report documented at least 23 cases in which journalists were targeted under PECA for reporting on or criticizing state institutions. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has described this trend as a pattern of intimidation carried out under the guise of law enforcement.

International condemnation

The UN Human Rights Office and the European Union both condemned the sentencing, describing it as judicial persecution and an apparent weaponization of the justice system. The EU criticized Pakistan for applying cybercrime legislation in ways that appear to penalize legitimate advocacy and free expression. Pakistani officials rejected the criticism, calling the matter an internal affair.

According to legal professionals, criminalizing criticism of institutions goes against international standards. The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly stated that governments cannot use defamation or cybercrime laws to shield themselves from scrutiny. Public institutions must tolerate criticism. That is what separates democracy from authoritarianism.

Mazari had previously represented Mahrang Baloch, who is now also in detention. Supporters believe the sequence of events is significant. Mazari was known for openly challenging military officials in court and for refusing to moderate her criticism. To her backers, the severity of the 17-year sentence suggests the case extends beyond social media posts. They see it as a warning directed at those who openly defy powerful institutions.

The broader threat

Amnesty International described the sentencing of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha as “an alarming misuse of the justice system,” warning that it could deter lawyers and activists from speaking out. Human Rights Watch said the case “sends a chilling message to journalists, lawyers, and civil society actors across Pakistan.” The Express Tribune reported that lawyers staged walkouts in protest, arguing that the verdicts threaten the ability of legal professionals to take on sensitive cases and represent marginalized communities.

For years, Mazari and Chattha represented individuals who alleged abuse by powerful institutions. Today, they are the ones behind bars. Pakistan’s government maintains that it respects human rights and freedom of expression. Yet this case has drawn sustained international scrutiny.