A Pakistani court has sentenced two prominent human rights lawyers to 17 years imprisonment each for social media posts deemed hostile to the state, in a case that international observers describe as part of a systematic campaign to silence dissent.
Zainab Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha, both advocates who have represented detained journalists and activists, were convicted by a military-linked court following proceedings they boycotted in protest.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Pakistan has long maintained laws restricting speech deemed threatening to state security, a legacy of military rule that successive civilian governments have retained and, critics argue, expanded. These provisions have been deployed with increasing frequency against journalists, lawyers, and civil society activists.
Prosecutors alleged that Mazari "consistently disseminated highly offensive, misleading and anti-state contents" with her husband's involvement, claiming their social media posts aligned with terrorist organizations. Court documents indicated Mazari had tweeted content that "portrayed the agenda" of banned separatist and militant groups, though specific posts were not disclosed in the verdict.
The couple's legal work has focused on defending political prisoners and challenging government detention policies. Mazari, daughter of former human rights minister Shireen Mazari, has represented numerous high-profile cases involving press freedom and political expression.
Human rights organizations responded with alarm. Amnesty International characterized the convictions as "the latest escalation in a sustained campaign of judicial harassment and intimidation by Pakistani authorities."
"These sentences represent a chilling message to anyone who would defend human rights in Pakistan," said Dinushka Dissanayake, Amnesty International's South Asia deputy director. "Using anti-terrorism laws to prosecute speech by human rights defenders perverts justice and undermines the rule of law."
The couple boycotted their hearing in protest of what they described as a predetermined outcome. Authorities reportedly used excessive force during their arrest while they were traveling to court, according to witness accounts.
The case originates from a complaint filed in August 2025. Legal analysts note the proceedings occurred under Pakistan's military court system, which operates with reduced due process protections compared to civilian courts. International law generally restricts military court jurisdiction to service members for military offenses, raising questions about the trial's legitimacy.
Western diplomatic missions in Islamabad have expressed concern about the verdict. The US State Department called on Pakistan to "respect fundamental freedoms including expression and peaceful assembly," while the European Union delegation noted the case's implications for Pakistan's human rights commitments.
The Pakistani government has defended the prosecutions as necessary to maintain national security. A foreign ministry spokesperson said Pakistan operates under the rule of law and that all defendants receive due process, a characterization contested by international legal experts.
The sentences have intensified concerns about shrinking space for civil society in Pakistan, where press freedom rankings have declined sharply in recent years. Reporters Without Borders ranks Pakistan 157th out of 180 countries in its latest press freedom index.
