In a blatant miscarriage of justice, the court has handed down a combined 17-year prison sentence and fines totaling PKR 36 million to advocates Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the so-called controversial tweets case. The verdict was delivered by Judge Afzal Majoka, who reportedly denied the advocates their fundamental right to a fair trial.
Under various sections of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), the sentences were broken down as follows:
- Section 9: Five years in prison each and fines of PKR 500,000 each.
- Section 10: Ten years in prison each and fines of PKR 30 million each.
- Section 26A: Two years in prison each and fines of PKR 1 million each.
The court has sent a copy of the verdict to the Superintendent of Adiala Jail.
The advocates appeared via video link from Adiala Jail, but the hearing lasted less than a minute, raising concerns about procedural fairness. When the judge asked about cross-examination, Imaan Mazari boldly questioned the presence of media and declared:
“We are being subjected to torture; we are being denied food and water. You are just doing your job, and because of you, all of this is happening. We refuse to participate in this sham.”
She then stood up and walked out in defiance, while Hadi Ali Chattha attempted to speak but was silenced as the video link was abruptly cut. The judge’s staff was instructed to cut the clip and submit it before the judge retreated to chambers, leaving the proceedings in complete darkness and chaos.
Observers note that these verdicts appear to be dictated from outside the courts, highlighting a disturbing trend where judicial decisions serve establishment and political interests rather than justice.
Legal experts and civil rights activists have condemned the proceedings as a grotesque assault on justice. The denial of the right to a proper defense reveals a judiciary more interested in political appeasement than upholding the rule of law. Many argue that this is an outright attack on the very fabric of justice, designed to intimidate and silence dissent.
This shameful episode serves as a stark warning: justice is under siege, and the integrity of the judiciary hangs by a thread.