Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali sentenced to 10 years each in security-breach case as family vows appeal
An anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi sentenced human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years each over a 2024 incident involving barriers on the England cricket team’s security route, a verdict the family calls a sham trial.
A Pakistani anti-terrorism court on Thursday sentenced prominent human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to 10 years in prison each in a security-breach case, a verdict that has drawn sharp criticism from rights groups and a promise of an appeal from the family. Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi, where the trial was held, and also imposed fines of Rs100,000 on each of them.
The court handed down the 10-year sentences under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read with Section 6(2)(m), which covers serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant to compel them to perform, or refrain from performing, their lawful duties. The couple also received shorter sentences of one year and two years on separate charges of obstructing and assaulting government servants, but those sentences will run concurrently, so each will serve 10 years in total under Thursday’s verdict.
The case dates back to October 2024, when the couple were accused of removing road barriers in Islamabad along a route designated for the touring England cricket team. Prosecutors said the action disrupted security arrangements for the visiting team during a Test match in Rawalpindi, and that it put the team’s security at risk. A case was registered at Islamabad’s Kohsar police station, and the couple were formally indicted on 7 October this year, after which the trial began.
Both defendants pleaded not guilty. According to a copy of the judgement obtained by the AFP news agency and reported by Al Jazeera, the judge wrote that to put the security of the England and Wales cricket team at risk “clearly shows the intentions and objective of the accused to create a sense of terror”. That reasoning is now likely to be central to any appeal, since the defence has consistently disputed that a protest over road barriers amounted to a terrorism offence.
The reaction from the family was immediate and blunt. Shireen Mazari, Imaan Mazari’s mother and a former federal human rights minister, described the proceedings as a “sham trial without any due process” and said the defence would file a petition against the verdict in the Supreme Court. Her statement framed the case not as a routine security matter but as part of a wider pattern of pressure on outspoken lawyers and activists.
Amnesty International also condemned the convictions. Its senior director for regional human rights impact, Yasmine Ahmed, called the jailing an “indictment of Pakistan’s justice system”, a response that will add international attention to the appeal. Rights groups have argued for years that anti-terrorism laws, designed for violent attacks, are being stretched to cover protests and dissent, and this case is now likely to be cited in that debate.
The verdict cannot be understood without the couple’s separate, earlier case. They have been in custody since their arrest on 23 January this year in a case over social media posts that prosecutors said were anti-state. A sessions court sentenced each of them to 17 years the following day under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, but the Supreme Court suspended those sentences on 17 September. Police re-arrested them the same day in the security-breach case, so Thursday’s sentences follow months already spent in detention.
For supporters, that sequence is the heart of the controversy: a suspended sentence in one case followed immediately by detention in another, and then a 10-year terrorism sentence over a 2024 incident involving barriers on a road. For prosecutors, by contrast, the two cases are distinct, and the security-breach verdict rests on its own evidence about interference with a protected route for an international team. The courts will now have to test which account holds up on appeal.
The case also raises practical questions about Pakistan’s legal system that go beyond one couple. Anti-terrorism courts were created to deliver swift verdicts in serious cases, but critics say their procedures, including trials held inside jails, limit public scrutiny and defence rights. Supporters of the system argue that security cases require protected venues and that the right of appeal to higher courts provides the necessary safeguard.
What may happen next is now relatively clear in procedural terms, even if the outcome is not. The defence is expected to petition the Supreme Court, which could suspend the sentences, order a fresh hearing, or uphold the verdict. A suspension would not end the case, but it would allow the couple to seek bail while the appeal is heard. If the verdict is upheld, the 10-year terms would stand, and the case would likely become a lasting reference point in debates over Pakistan’s anti-terrorism laws, freedom of expression and the space allowed to human rights lawyers.
More in Pakistan News
PakistanPakistan military 'cautiously optimistic' on Iran-US mediation after Munir's second Tehran trip
PakistanOGRA raises RLNG prices by up to 15.3% for October as higher crude costs feed through
Pakistan