Several leading human rights organisations and activists have condemned the 10-year prison sentences handed down to Pakistani human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in connection with a security breach case in Pakistan. Critics have described the proceedings as a 'sham trial' and raised serious questions about proportionality, due process, and the freedom of lawyers to represent human rights victims.

NCHR Raises Proportionality Concerns

The National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) of Pakistan was among the first official bodies to voice alarm over the sentencing. In a post on X, the NCHR stated: 'NCHR has serious concerns on further sentencing of lawyers Imaan and Hadi to 10 yrs imprisonment. Right to fair trial, due process & effective judicial remedies must be fully protected. Severity of sentences raises concerns about proportionality & protection of fundamental rights.'

The commission's intervention is notable given its status as a state-affiliated body — its public criticism of the verdict signals the depth of institutional discomfort with the outcome.

Human Rights Council Demands Urgent Judicial Review

Human Rights Council of Pakistan Chairman Jamshid Hussain expressed 'deep concern' over the sentences, which relate to allegations of removing security barriers and interfering in state affairs. Hussain argued that the application of anti-terrorism clauses to incidents of this nature 'raise questions that demand serious judicial review.'

The council demanded that the appeal against the verdict be heard immediately, that requests for suspension of sentence and bail be decided expeditiously, and that both lawyers be guaranteed legal consultation, family meetings, and treatment consistent with human dignity. It called for enforcement of the law to align with the principles of fundamental rights, transparency, and proportionality.

Activists Denounce 'Sham Case,' Cite Pattern of Repression

Baloch activist Sammi Deen Baloch condemned the sentencing, calling it a 'sham case' and warning that such verdicts 'expose the disturbing state of justice in Pakistan.' In her post on X, Baloch stated: 'Imaan has always stood with the oppressed communities of the country and raised her voice for needy people.' She added that each such judgment 'further erodes public faith in the judiciary and reinforces a painful reality that justice is becoming a distant promise in Pakistan.'

Defence of Human Rights Pakistan similarly condemned what it described as continued judicial harassment and reprisals against the two lawyers.

Lawyer Mirza Shahzad Akbar Issues Sharp Challenge to Media

Lawyer Mirza Shahzad Akbar characterised the convictions as a 'wrongful conviction in a sham trial before a sham court.' In a post on X, Akbar challenged Pakistan's senior journalists and news anchors to 'speak up, Tweet, or dedicate a show to critically examining what this case is really about,' asking: 'What is their real crime? What are they actually being punished for? And who is really behind all this?'

Akbar warned against retrospective outrage, stating: 'What matters is not what we say when these dark times are over. What matters is what we choose to say and do TODAY, when speaking out actually counts.'

What This Means for Pakistan's Human Rights Space

The case has drawn attention to what critics allege is a broader pattern of using security and anti-terrorism legislation against lawyers and activists who represent marginalised communities. Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir is a prominent human rights advocate and former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; the severity of the sentence against a figure of her stature has amplified international concern. The convictions come at a time when Pakistan's judiciary is already under intense scrutiny over due process standards and the independence of its courts. Whether higher courts will expeditiously take up the appeal will be a closely watched indicator of the space available for dissent and legal advocacy in the country.