The line between upholding public order and battling ‘terrorism’ is instrumental for a functioning administration of justice. When these lines become blurred, their ramifications transcend impartial judicial proceedings. They spark questions about constitutional supremacy, democratic values, just accountability and the safeguards of civil liberties. The latest sentencing of human rights lawyers, Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha to 10 years in prison each has brought these questions into the spotlight.
An Anti-Terrorism Court in Rawalpindi issued sentencing orders on October 29 in connection with an October-2024 security breach case. The prosecution submitted that the couple had “impeded police enforcement, disrupted security installments and incited public unrest”. The court also imposed supplementary sentences under provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) relating to interference and assault against public servants.
It is a contentious verdict as the Anti-Terrorism Act was promulgated to deal with extraordinary threats posed to public security. Its application to removal of road barricades invites scrutiny about whether the said conduct fulfills the statutory criteria for terrorism. Prosecuting ordinary citizens under ordinary laws and order infringement through counterterrorism framework demonstrates how exceptional security peril and ordinary criminal conduct are being conflated in order to prolong vengeance. A justice system begins to lose its credibility when the punishment seems disproportionate from the nature and context of the alleged offence.
Concerns regarding the proceedings cannot be disregarded. The trial was carried out inside Adiala Jail. The defense objected regarding pending applications before superior courts while the couple’s family alleged that “they were prevented from accessing their chosen legal counsel and crucial documents”. These claims demand rigorous assessment by the appellate courts.
Ultimately, the onus now lies with the superior judiciary. The appeals should be heard without deliberated delay while taking the enforceability of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the impartiality of the proceedings and the appropriate severity of the punishment into serious consideration.
Justice is not gauged by the intensity of a punishment rather it is gauged by the impartiality of the due process, the reliability of the testimony and the justness of the punishment. A justice system showcases its leverage not merely through its capability to prosecute criminal offence, but through its just application of law, even in cases pertaining to its most prominent dissenters.
The Imaan-Hadi case is nothing more than a political revenge, which only haunted the state institutions when they advocated for the Baloch families in Islamabad and held the “powerful state institutions” accountable for their gross human rights violations. However, we are yet to see some sound judicial remarks while the former proceedings by an ATC Judge and the claims levied by the family of the couple and their defense counsel make the case look more a revenge than a judicial decision.