A Pakistani court sentenced activists Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years in prison for terrorism-related charges.
A Pakistani antiterrorism court sentenced human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years in prison. Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra delivered the verdict inside Adiala prison on Thursday.
The court found the couple guilty of terrorism-related charges. Officials claimed the pair put the England cricket team at risk. The judge stated their actions intended to create public terror.
However, the court admitted the event involved a simple removal of a road barrier. This incident occurred in Islamabad during October 2024. The couple allegedly blocked police and incited public interest.
Next, the defendants pleaded not guilty to all accusations. They called themselves prisoners of conscience in official statements. They argued that authorities targeted them for their human rights advocacy.
Also, the couple claimed the state used them as an example. They said the government wanted to silence voices against oppression. They denied all claims of wrongdoing during the trial.
Meanwhile, Shireen Mazari criticized the legal process as a sham. She is the mother of Imaan Mazari and a former government minister. She stated the court denied the couple a fair defense.
After that, the defense team announced plans to appeal. They will file a formal petition with the Supreme Court soon. Family members argue that the judicial process lacked due process.
Furthermore, Amnesty International condemned the convictions as a major failure. Yasmine Ahmed said the justice system failed to uphold fair trial principles. She believes the state uses terrorism charges to punish activists.
Finally, the couple remains in custody due to earlier legal issues. A lower court previously sentenced them in a separate social media case. Although the Supreme Court suspended those terms, police re-arrested them immediately.
Still, the government maintains that the judiciary operates independently. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar continues to defend the court system. Critics argue these cases show a clear pattern of political retaliation.