A case where the jury is determined before the trial — this is the kind of prosecution held against a few true human rights lawyers in the country: Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha. Since their formal indictment in October 2025, the Islamabad High Court has initiated proceedings. Unlike the unwarranted pace of justice in Pakistan, this case is progressing at a rapid pace. But why is it an unfair indictment to begin with? The unfairness of the indictment stems from the fact that their crime involved questioning a state that aspires to remain unquestioned.
Why are the trials held unfairly?
The lawyers are facing consequences for advocating on behalf of those who are suffering and for peacefully protesting their actions. As the trials began, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali requested to represent themselves in the proceedings; however, a state-appointed counsel was instead entrusted with the job. The accused have since been vocal about their lack of confidence in the counsel. The challan was read, and witnesses were cross-examined, and this evidence was recorded in the absence of the accused and in violation of Section 353 (evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused) of the CrPC. Their bail bond had been revoked on the grounds of absence from trial, which was contested by Hadi Ali Chattha. He has also expressed that a case involving controversial tweets from the past 5 years is being framed against him, despite the fact that he only joined Twitter in 2025.
Why is this a case against every Pakistani?
If the crime is coming to the defence of peaceful protesters when police transcend all bounds to anyhow repress the outrage, voicing forced disappearances of Baloch men and women and the blatant racial profiling by authorities, we must ask, is this being anti-state? The state has long buried freedom of expression by vanishing journalists overnight, labelling them a terrorist threat. And what better could a state do than organise an unfair trial to impose 7–14 years in jail? According to which constitution is the expression of democratic dissent liable to penalties of terrorism? Redirecting the intention of the tweets and once again escaping answerability will slowly condition Pakistanis to self-censor.
A critical point that will shape the future of democracy in Pakistan is the state’s ability to indict the accused through unfair trials and false charges of blasphemy and terrorism.
If the state succeeds in indicting the accused through unfair trials and false charges of blasphemy and terrorism — while the truth remains hidden — by using and misusing the law as it pleases, then any attempt to revitalise freedom of speech in Pakistan will be rendered ineffective. Then laws like PECA will serve as a veto for indictments, symbolising the consequences faced by those who dare to speak, think, or dissent. What does this say about how undisputedly authoritative our institutions wish to stay? People in the country have long forgotten the idea of states being the ones to serve citizens and not the other way around, but the normalisation of this very idea is of grave danger. It is accepting all human rights abuses, it is surrendering to injustice, and it is forgoing our right to critique. Among all the ongoing cybercrime activities, it is no coincidence that this particular one has been prioritised for urgent action, as silencing one voice is easier before more voices emerge. If we silence one voice, all others will succumb to fear.
What can we do?
The picture is as clear as it gets: weaponising laws to stifle demands for accountability, to terrorise journalists and lawyers and those who possess the capability to stand up for victims – this is all, henceforth, a crime if the two accused are indicted. It is about the allowance to speak — granted to the citizens — and what lies ahead if we dare lift our heads in front of the state. The present is the time when we use all our speech to support those who dared to challenge this despicable institutionalisation. Use your social media and attend protests, conferences, and court hearings. Contentment with the little democracy left for us to feed on will continually shorten if we forget that our freedom of expression and speech should be protected and valued.