An Islamabad district and sessions court has sentenced Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to 17 years’ imprisonment each under multiple sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). The sentences will run concurrently, and both were also fined Rs36 million each.
The verdict was announced after the completion of arguments in a trial that ran for several months.
Since the ruling, supporters have portrayed the decision as an attack on freedom of expression. However, court records and the prosecution’s case show that the matter before the court was not about criticism of government policy but about the legal limits of online speech under Pakistani law.
What the court examined and why the argument failed
Prosecutors argued that the posts repeatedly framed banned militant groups as victims while portraying state institutions as aggressors. The court accepted the argument that such messaging crossed from opinion into unlawful advocacy, particularly where it could be seen as indirectly legitimizing violence linked to the proscribed Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA).
Under PECA and existing counterterrorism laws, speech that promotes or rationalizes violence by banned organizations does not fall under protected expression.
The conduct of the trial also undercuts claims of political targeting. The FIR was registered in August 2025 yet the accused were not immediately taken into custody. They were granted pre-arrest bail and remained free for months.
During this time, the court held 44 hearings and listed the case more than 100 times.
Court proceedings record repeated absences by the accused, the issuance and later recall of non-bailable warrants and multiple adjournments.
Legal observers say these details reflect procedural latitude not haste or victimization.
The debate intensified after a proposed discussion session by the Islamabad Bar Association, which critics argue risks turning a concluded verdict into a political issue during an election season. They warn this could blur the line between legal analysis and mobilization.
Appeal remains a legal right. But reducing the verdict to a free-speech issue while ignoring the content examined and the process followed, oversimplifies a ruling rooted in law rather than politics.
Read more: Balochistan Enforces Restrictions on Families of BLA Terrorists After January 31 Attacks
