Islamabad, November 6,2026: Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, on Friday filed appeals in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging their convictions by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in the security barrier removal case. They also sought suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the appeals.
The appeals were filed through advocates Faisal Siddiqui, Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), read with Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
On October 29, the ATC sentenced both lawyers to 10 years in prison each under the ATA. The court also awarded them one-year sentences and imposed fines of Rs50,000 each under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for obstructing a public servant. They were further sentenced to two years each under Section 353 of the PPC for using criminal force to deter a public servant from performing official duties.
In identical appeals, the defence counsel argued that the trial court had failed to ensure a fair trial and that the convictions resulted from illegal and arbitrary proceedings.
They contended that charges were framed without providing the required documents under Section 265-C of the CrPC and that pleas of not guilty were recorded on behalf of the appellants without obtaining them.
The appeals further argued that prosecution evidence was recorded in the absence of the accused and their counsel, allegedly in violation of Section 353 of the CrPC and Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process.
The counsel also challenged the jail trial, describing it as resembling a secret proceeding conducted without lawful authority. They maintained that the appellants were not given proper and confidential access to their lawyers and that state counsel was appointed against their wishes.
The appeals also questioned the trial court’s decision to proceed despite a transfer application pending before the high court, citing Section 526(8) of the CrPC.
On the merits, the defence argued that the conviction under Section 7 of the ATA was unsustainable because the prosecution had failed to establish the design or purpose required under Section 6 of the law.
They pointed out that the trial court itself had described the incident as “a very common nature, ordinary type of incident”. According to the defence, the evidence showed that the appellants were on their way to court when they were stopped at the barrier.
The appellants have requested the IHC to set aside the convictions and acquit them. In separate applications, they have also sought suspension of their sentences and release on bail, arguing that the statutory restrictions on bail should not be treated as absolute in the circumstances of the case.
Separately, a group of 23 international human rights and legal organisations, including Amnesty International, on Friday called on the Pakistani government to immediately and unconditionally release Imaan and Hadi and take steps to have their convictions overturned.
In a joint statement, the organisations condemned the sentences and expressed concern over what they described as the extensive misuse of the criminal justice system against the two lawyers.
The signatories included Alliance for Lawyers at Risk, Défense Sans Frontière, New York City Bar Association, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Geneva Bar Association, Lawyers for Lawyers and PEN Norway.
The statement said the convictions raised serious concerns about the use of anti-terrorism legislation to punish or intimidate lawyers engaged in permissible human rights work.
It also questioned the proceedings at Adiala Jail, saying the verdict had been delivered despite a petition pending before the Supreme Court. The organisations said the trial raised concerns about due process and the right to an effective judicial remedy.
They alleged that the couple had been kept in a cage-like structure in the courtroom, restricting their ability to communicate effectively with their counsel, while their lawyers were not given sufficient access to them.
The statement further maintained that the prosecution relied primarily on police testimony and that the defence had not been given an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence. The couple have denied the charges and maintained that they were being targeted for their professional work and activism.
The organisations questioned the proportionality of invoking anti-terrorism provisions over the alleged removal of security barriers, arguing that such legislation should not be applied arbitrarily or used to criminalise peaceful expression, assembly or legitimate professional activity.
The joint statement also referred to what the organisations described as successive, politically motivated proceedings against the couple, alleging that the cases were intended to deter them from continuing their human rights work.
They recalled that the Supreme Court had suspended their 17-year sentences in the social media posts case on September 17, after which they were rearrested.
According to the organisations, the successive proceedings and continued detention despite the Supreme Court’s intervention risked creating a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession and access to justice in Pakistan.
Citing Article 10-A of the Constitution and Pakistan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the signatories urged the authorities to uphold fair trial guarantees and ensure that anti-terrorism laws were not used against lawyers for their professional representation or human rights advocacy.
They called for the release of Imaan and Hadi, the quashing of their convictions and the withdrawal of cases arising solely from their human rights work. They also urged the government to review the use of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act and anti-terrorism legislation against lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders and peaceful critics.
The statement concluded by calling on Pakistani authorities to respect international obligations, protect the independence of the legal profession and ensure that lawyers could perform their duties without intimidation, retaliation or improper interference.
