by Nilesh Kunwar

Dubious Sentencing

In Pakistan, there’s a saying that ‘if you fight for the human rights of others, then be ready to lose your own’. And with an anti-terrorism court convicting human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years imprisonment the import of this cynical maxim has yet once again been vindicated.

Detractors may however contend that since the crime committed by this couple came under purview of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, they rightly got what they deserved. This appears to be a logical argument since they have been charged with putting “the security of (the England and Wales Cricket) team at risk,” which “clearly shows the intentions and objective of the accused to create a sense of terror.”

So, what exactly did Mazari and her husband do to be slapped with such a long prison term?

Vexatious Litigation

According to the persecutors, Mazari and Chattha had removed barriers from a road designated for the visiting cricket team's security convoy and obstructed police officers at Zero Point in Islamabad. Interestingly, the court described this as "a very common nature (and) ordinary type of incident apparently of removal of a barrier."

Yet, it invoked the Anti-Terrorism law, ruling that this act constituted a “major security breach” as it had occurred during the visit of an international cricket team. To defend this bizarre assessment, the court cited the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore.

Such brazen misuse of the Anti- Terrorism Law leaves little room for doubt that this is a ‘fixed’ judgment. “Reasons are the soul and heart of a judgment” is a cardinal principle in judicial rulings and even a lay person would agree that in this case, the alleged infringement doesn’t justify the prison term awarded to Mazari and Chattha.

So, could the judges’ admission of what the duo did was actually "a very common nature ordinary type of incident,” be a cryptic message that their heart wasn’t in the judgment?

Why Mazari?

In May 2024, Pakistan army chief Gen (now self-appointed Field Marshal) talked about the threat of “digital terrorism.” Calling it “a poorly defined term that some rights activists fear can be applied to anyone who posts criticism of the military online,” Voice of America quoted Salma Gul, a history student at the University of Peshawar, that digital terrorism “is not a word in Pakistan's legal framework” and adding that “It is an unfamiliar term coined by the army to attack those who raise their voices.” (Emphasis added).

As Mazari offered pro bono legal aid to family members of Baloch people subjected to enforced disappearances by the Pakistan army and other security forces and law enforcement agencies under its command, defended human rights organisation Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) chief Marhang Baloch and even Afghan nationals being harassed by Pakistani authorities, Pakistani journalist Asad Ali Toor opines she emerged as “a constant challenge for the state.” While Rawalpindi unleashed a concerted social media onslaught to discredit Mazari, the world disregarded the same and instead was taking notice of the wonderful job she was doing, despite the looming danger of suffering extreme physical harm.

In 2025, Mazari received the Young Inspiration Award from the World Expression Forum for displaying "extraordinary courage, integrity, and impact in the struggle for the rule of law and justice." When she was arrested on sedition charges, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Defenders Mary Lawlor hit out at Islamabad saying that the cases against her “appear to reflect an arbitrary use of the legal system to harass and intimidate.”

Consequently, Mazari came to be seen as a serious threat by the insecure field marshal and her immediate removal from the scene till things became better was necessary and the easiest way to do so was through Rawalpindi’s pet stratagem of using judicial manipulation. Gen Zia ul Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf did so with Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif respectively.

Compromised Judiciary

The Doctrine of Necessity is a contentious legal provision that allows normally unlawful or extraordinary actions to be considered valid when taken in an urgent crisis to prevent a greater harm or to preserve order. Though rarely applied as it is tantamount to righting a wrong, this proviso has been extensively used in Pakistan to legalise unconstitutional acts.

Starting with the unconstitutional dissolution of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly by the Governor General in 1954, it was used again just four years later to legalise General Ayub Khan's military coup and abrogation of the 1956 Constitution. In 1977, Gen Zia ul Haq used this provision to validate his coup by citing it as state necessity and a transient measure to hold free elections.

In 2000, Pakistan’s Supreme Court legalised Gen Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 military takeover and also granted him the power to amend the 1973 Constitution thereby surrendering the legislature’s sovereignty to the executive.

That the Pakistan army chief exercises complete influence over both the government and judiciary became apparent in 2016, when Gen Musharraf disclosed that the then army chief Gen Raheel Sharif helped in getting his name removed from the exit control list. Musharraf admitted that "Once he (Gen Sharif) got the government to relieve the pressure that they were exerting, the courts gave their judgment and allowed me to go abroad for treatment."

Two years later, senior Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Justice Shaukat Siddiqui, who was in the reckoning for the post of Pakistan’s Chief Justice also made some scathing remarks against the army. While addressing the Rawalpindi Bar Association, he admitted that “Today the judiciary (in Pakistan) and media have come in the control of ‘Bandookwala’ (a euphemism for the army). Adding that the “Judiciary is not independent,” he went on to reveal that “In different cases, the ISI forms benches of its choice to get desired results.”

Though Justice Siddiqui was dismissed by the President of Pakistan on recommendations of Pakistan’s Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in October 2018, the Supreme Court on March 22, 2024 ruled that this dismissal was "unlawful." Just three days later, in an unprecedented development that validated Justice Siddiqui’s revelations, six IHC judges wrote an open letter to Pakistan’s SJC accusing ISI of severe interference, intimidation, and coercion in judicial functions.

This letter revealed that relatives of judges were abducted and tortured to extract coerced statements or influence court rulings, that secret surveillance of judges including installation of cameras inside their private residences and intelligence officials even used direct approach and applied pressure to engineer specific judicial outcomes.

Who Cares?

The Mazari-Chattha case has drawn widespread condemnation and severe criticism.

Senior Director for Regional Human Rights Impact at Amnesty International Yasmine Ahmed holds that “These convictions are an indictment of Pakistan’s justice system.” She rightly maintains that “This was not just Imaan and Hadi on trial-it was a test of the judiciary’s ability to uphold the principles of justice and the right to fair trial.”

Lamenting that Pakistan has “failed that test miserably,” Ahmed pointed out that “It is clear that these ‘anti-terrorism’ charges are being used to punish Imaan and Hadi for their human rights advocacy.”

Senior Associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch, Patricia Gossam said that the duo is “being targeted solely because of their refusal to stop their fearless human rights work and for exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly."

She also stated that “Prosecuting two human rights lawyers for terrorism sends a chilling message to everyone who speaks up for fundamental rights in Pakistan.” Saying that “Punishing lawyers and human rights activists for defending rights leaves those they represent without protection,” she demanded that “Concerned governments should press Pakistan to end its crackdown on human rights advocacy.”

Stating that “Lawyers, like other individuals, are entitled to freedom of expression,” the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted with concern that “The exercise of this right should never be conflated with criminal conduct, especially not terrorism.” This incisive observation brings back Justice Siiddiqui’s “Judiciary is not independent” revelation into focus.

Despite such severe criticism, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has maintained a stoic silence because it’s not him but Field Marshal Munir who decides when and what should be spoken. But with the international community turning a Nelson’s eye to the ongoing wave of unprecedented extra-judicial killings as well as enforced disappearances in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, Pakistan’s field marshal has nothing to worry about and least of all lose his sleep over the Mazari-Chattha conviction.

He remains US president Donald Trump’s “favourite field marshal” and with the 27th constitutional amendment giving him immunity against legal persecution for life, things couldn’t have been better for him. Most importantly, despite being flayed for committing gross human rights violations, the United Nations General Assembly still elected Pakistan to the United Nations Human Rights Council for a three-year term last year, and so for Rawalpindi, all is well.

Pakistan has taught us that in today's world, it’s not morality, ethics or even diplomacy but following the classic nursery rhyme line “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” that really matters.

Nilesh Kunwar is a retired Indian Army Officer who has served in Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. He is a keen ‘Kashmir-Watcher,’ and after retirement is pursuing his favourite hobby of writing for newspapers, journals and think-tanks. Views expressed above are the author's own