A district and sessions court on Saturday sentenced lawyer and activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, to a total of 17 years in prison each under different sections in a case related to controversial social media posts. According to the 22-page written verdict, Mazari and her husband were sentenced to five years in jail each with a fine of Rs5 million each under section 9 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), sentenced to 10 years each with a fine Rs30 million each under section 10 of the Peca and also convicted under section 26-A with two years each and a fine of Rs1 million each. Legal experts have rightly called this sentence a travesty of justice and appalling. It should be of concern for those who believe in dissent and freedom of expression because Peca has been used to prosecute someone for posting and reposting tweets in favour of a ‘proscribed individual’. This is bizarre logic.
Let’s face it: this is not merely about one couple but rather about the shrinking space for lawful dissent and the ease with which digital expression is being criminalised. Imaan and Hadi have been raising their voices on a number of issues – from blasphemy-related cases to the Baloch to enforced disappearances. Legal experts who have followed their case have said there was a lapse in following due process. Even more disturbing has been the public posture of the state. When government and state officials start celebrating such trials, one should worry. Oddly – given our history – most of those in power seem to forget that power is a fickle friend here. And the shoe may soon find itself on the other foot. What then? Laws like Peca need to be applied as selectively as possible. It has not been too far back in history that those in power today were similarly accused, dragged through courts and charged and indicted for similar ‘crimes’.
We also need to reflect on how we define national interest. The state, understandably, has a responsibility to curb incitement, extremist messaging and content that may directly threaten public order or security. Laws such as Peca were enacted with precisely this objective in mind. However, for such legislation to retain credibility, it must be applied with consistency and restraint, and in a manner that clearly distinguishes between malicious propaganda and legitimate political expression or human rights advocacy. The state should ideally counter propaganda with facts rather than relying primarily on punitive measures against those raising uncomfortable questions. What makes the current approach troubling is the perception of selective enforcement. The contrast risks diluting the seriousness of genuine security threats and blurring the line between dissent and danger. If individuals make factual errors or cross legal boundaries, they should be confronted with evidence and afforded due process, not subjected to prolonged and publicised legal pursuit. Cases such as that of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha thus raise important questions about proportionality and transparency in the application of cyber laws. Laws presumably meant to protect citizens from harm must not be used as tools to stifle critical voices, especially those working within the framework of rights advocacy. A democratic system is ultimately strengthened when it shows the confidence to tolerate criticism while firmly confronting real threats to public safety and social cohesion.
