The convictions against the husband-wife duo stem from tweets about enforced disappearances and other human rights concerns posted by Imaan and reposted by Hadi.

For these X posts, both have been convicted under various sections of the cybercrime law. However, the order does not clarify whether the sentences are to be served consecutively, amounting to a total of 17 years, or concurrently, which would cap the jail term at 10 years — the maximum sentence imposed under any single section.

Ten years ago, in 2016, when the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act was passed under the Pakistan Muslim League – N (PML-N) government, it was widely criticized as a tool to suppress dissent. In the years since, vague call-up notices and First Information Reports (FIRs) against political workers, journalists, and dissidents have become routine. The accusations almost always involve posting “anti-state” content.

Originally enacted under the PML-N government, PECA was later turned against PML-N workers and leaders after their term ended in 2018. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) attempted to further strengthen the law through controversial amendments and ordinances during its tenure from 2018 to 2022, though these moves did not survive judicial scrutiny.

“While the common complaint about Pakistan’s criminal justice system is endless delays, Imaan and Hadi’s trial was unusually swift — though far from fair.”

A constant criticism of PECA is that the process itself serves as punishment: individuals are charged and then subjected to the grueling criminal trial process, which becomes punitive in its own right. Arrests, bail hearings, repeated court appearances, the stigma of being labeled “anti-state,” and the constant threat of a lingering case – often without trial – have been the typical pattern under PECA. This ordeal itself seemed to be the goal, rather than securing convictions. That changed with Imaan and Hadi’s case, which proceeded with unusual swiftness.

Among other provisions, they were sentenced under the latest amendment to PECA, called Section 26-A, which was introduced after a rushed and controversial process just last year by the current ruling coalition. The amendment was pushed through the Parliament without meaningful debate and was deployed almost immediately against journalists less than two months after its passage. Imaan and Hadi had defended some of these journalists as counsel. Ironically, theirs is the first conviction under PECA’s latest amendment. Their only “crime” was refusing to acquiesce. This refusal is precisely what they have been punished for.

While the common complaint about Pakistan’s criminal justice system is endless delays, Imaan and Hadi’s trial was unusually swift — though far from fair. The cybercrime case against them was registered last August, and the trial concluded within five months. This trial can only be described as a mistrial, since they were sentenced in absentia. While on their way to appear before the trial court (after receiving protection from the High Court), they were violently arrested in connection with another case. A fresh, previously unknown FIR – dating back to February – was suddenly invoked against the couple, of which neither they nor anyone else had prior knowledge. They were stopped in the middle of the road, violently arrested, and secretly produced before the Anti-Terrorism Court without informing their family or legal counsel.

They were arrested on Jan. 23, and sent to Adiala Jail. The High Court had given them until Jan. 24 to join the trial court proceedings and complete the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Had they not been arrested, they would have done so. But since they were intercepted on their way to court, then put in jail, they were made to join court proceedings in the PECA trial via video link from prison. They were told to complete their cross-examination remotely rather than in person — of course without access to any case files or ability to confront witnesses with material. Just because someone is placed under arrest in one case does not mean they forgo the right to appear in court to defend themselves in another case registered against them. Both protested how they were being dealt with, boycotting the proceedings. Hours later, they were convicted.

Laws like PECA, which excessively criminalize speech, are merely instruments of control. Compounded by a regressive and overbroad statute is a criminal justice system that many human rights advocates call a “criminal injustice” system, wielded by the state to target dissidents like Imaan and Hadi.

As seen in their case, complaints often originate from within the investigating agency itself: the case was built by an officer of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). In most such cases, a technical assistant from the agency serves as the complainant or informant, monitoring and flagging posts. What is particularly absurd about their case is that the “incriminating” posts reflect positions long and publicly held by a wide range of human rights activists – including many now in government when they were in opposition. These concern the rights of political prisoners wrongly incarcerated by the state, the practice of enforced disappearances, the plight of affected families, and broader state policy on militancy.

When Imaan and Hadi cross-examined NCCIA officers, it became evident how quickly the case unraveled on its merits. But that was precisely what was not allowed. Not once but twice, their right to cross-examination was denied. They had to approach the High Court and Supreme Court to have it restored.

When they did get that right, they were hit with fresh cases and ultimately jailed in one and sentenced in another. The judgment itself makes no mention of the cross-examination that occurred, as though it never happened.

Two human rights lawyers who have defended others against the state’s excesses and advocated for the wrongfully incarcerated now face the same treatment themselves. It is now up to others to advocate for their rights, because if this can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.

Farieha Aziz

The writer is a co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights and host of the Digi Pod on Dawn News English

The post How Imaan-Hadi Conviction Marks the Death of Fair Trial in Pakistan appeared first on Dissent Today.

When a supposed National Cyber Crime Agency (NCCIA) official witness, who could not even produce a valid NCCIA identification card, is cross-examined in this alleged cybercrime case and declares that using the term “enforced disappearance” in a tweet amounts to propagating a terrorist narrative, the farce underlying both the First Information Report (FIR) and the trial stands fully exposed.

The absurdity deepens when it is pointed out that the very same term has been used repeatedly by Pakistan’s Supreme Court, the Islamabad High Court, and other high courts; by politicians, including the current chief minister of Punjab, Maryam Nawaz Sharif; and that Pakistan itself has an official Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances. Yet the witness insists that when others use the term, it does not constitute terrorist propaganda, but when the accused uses it in this particular trial, even in a similar legal and factual context, it suddenly does.

This contradiction lays bare not only the falsehood underpinning the prosecution but also its mala fide intent. It shows how, in today’s Pakistan, words are being weaponized – stripped of their legal meaning and context – to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and all those who question or criticize the policies and actions of the state and its institutions.

Take the term “enforced disappearance.” The NCCIA would do well to educate itself. Enforced disappearance is not a political slogan; it is a well-established concept in international law and international relations, particularly since the aftermath of the Second World War.

The first documented instance of systematic enforced disappearances occurred during WWII, when Nazi Germany covertly abducted thousands of people from occupied territories under the infamous 1941 Nacht und Nebel Erlass – the Night and Fog Decree.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal addressed this policy directly. Its judgments relating to the Night and Fog decree constituted the first application of international law to enforced disappearances. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who was responsible for implementing the decree, was tried and executed for his role. As legal scholars have noted, the Nuremberg judgments established that conduct underlying enforced disappearance was prohibited under the customary laws of war and constituted a war crime carrying individual criminal liability (Brian Finucane, “Enforced Disappearance as a Crime Under International Law: A Neglected Origin in the Laws of War,” Yale Journal of International Law, 2010). These judgments also underscored that enforced disappearance amounts to a crime against humanity, not merely a war crime.

Against this backdrop, how can the government of Pakistan justify filing a cybercrime case against an individual simply for using the term “enforced disappearance,” accusing them of furthering a terrorist narrative?

The argument that referencing enforced disappearances necessarily accuses the state, law enforcement agencies, or intelligence services is also legally untenable. International law has always defined enforced disappearance within these parameters.

“In today’s Pakistan, words are being weaponized – stripped of their legal meaning and context – to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and all those who question or criticize the policies and actions of the state and its institutions.”

 

A clear distinction exists between kidnapping by non-state actors and enforced disappearance. Kidnapping is an unlawful seizure carried out by individuals and is addressed under ordinary criminal law. Enforced disappearance, by contrast, involves the arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by state agents, or by non-state actors acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate or whereabouts.

This places the individual outside the protection of the law, making enforced disappearance not only a crime but a grave human rights violation.

This distinction is reflected consistently in United Nations’ resolutions and in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (ICPPED). Pakistan’s position further undermines the NCCIA’s claims because the country did not oppose two key UN General Assembly resolutions on enforced disappearances: Resolution 33/173 in December 1978 and Resolution 47/133 in December 1992. Both were adopted unanimously.

The 1978 resolution expressed deep concern over reports of enforced or involuntary disappearances resulting from excesses by law enforcement or security authorities and called on states to hold perpetrators accountable and assist in locating the disappeared. It also urged UN bodies to take action to prevent such practices. The 1992 resolution adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and paved the way for the ICPPED.

Although Pakistan is not a party to the Convention, its definitions reflect the consensus expressed in those earlier, unanimously adopted resolutions.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has itself relied on the same definition, including in the Mohabbat Shah case. Article 1(2) of the ICPPED states that no exceptional circumstances — whether war, political instability, or public emergency — may be invoked to justify enforced disappearance. Article 2 defines enforced disappearance as the deprivation of liberty by state agents or those acting with state acquiescence, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate.

Enforced disappearances are not unique to Pakistan. They have occurred across the world — from Latin America to Asia and Africa — particularly during the Cold War era. The Indian state, for instance, has been implicated in enforced disappearances in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir since 1989, as well as in Punjab and Manipur during the 1980s and 1990s.

In many Latin American countries, the end of military dictatorships and the restoration of democracy led to the cessation of enforced disappearances and, in some cases, accountability for past crimes.

In Pakistan, however, impunity continues to prevail, despite our international commitments against enforced disappearance.

Recently, Pakistan’s military spokesman Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry held a prejudicial and inflammatory press conference and commented on the subject matter of Imaan and Hadi’s ongoing trial. It reveals the real origin of the case, making it clear that it is no longer possible for any court in Pakistan to adjudicate upon the matter in a fair and unbiased manner.

This trial is about whether Pakistan will uphold the rule of law, respect international legal norms, and protect the fundamental right to speak the truth.

Shireen Mazari

The writer is a defense and security analyst and served as Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights from 2018 to 2022.

The post How My Daughter’s Trial Exposes Pakistan’s Assault on Human Rights appeared first on Dissent Today.

On Monday morning, they were presented before the anti-terrorism court after being booked on charges of terrorism. Former MNA Ali Wazir’s face was covered with a cloth as he appeared before the court.

In his statement to the court, Wazir said that he did not say anything objectionable during his speech at the rally in Islamabad. “We simply wanted to get our voices heard in Islamabad,” he added.

Imaan Mazari’s legal team told the court that they were not allowed to hold a meeting with her and sought the court’s permission to meet her. The anti-terrorism court then announced its verdict, remanding Ali Wazir and Imaan Mazari to the police for three days.

Both individuals have been booked after their participation in the PTM rally against enforced disappearances and terrorism held outside the Supreme Court on Friday. Ahead of the rally, workers and supporters of PTM were arrested on their way to Islamabad. The administration had also imposed Section 144 in the capital on the day of the rally.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Imaan Mazari, Ali Wazir Handed Over To Counter Terrorism Department For 3-Day Remand appeared first on Dissent Today.

On Thursday, Islamabad administration imposed Section 144 for an indefinite period, banning rallies in the federal capital. The PTM jalsa is scheduled to be held at 3pm today (Friday), and organisers have vowed to go ahead with it despite the crackdown and restrictions.

PTM’s Naimatullah Wazir and NDM’s Hassan Nasir are among those who have been taken into custody. Earlier, more than 80 members of the PTM were reportedly arrested from Shewa, Hangu after the police stopped their convoy heading to Islamabad.

Activist Talimand Khan announced on X (formerly Twitter) that his younger brother had been arrested “as part of midnight crackdown on PTM”.

Swat police has arrested my younger brother Aqalmand Khan as part of midnight crack down on PTM. The state itself is adding fuel to the fire. pic.twitter.com/7xWkxaYyBv

— Talimand Khan (@MirSwat) August 17, 2023

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post PTM Workers Face Crackdown, Restrictions Ahead of Islamabad Rally Against Enforced Disappearances appeared first on Dissent Today.

Further, the Committee notes that “the trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned.” Accordingly, “trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials.” 

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are opaque, biased and heavily dependent on the whims and wishes of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal; no free and unimpeded access of accused to counsel; no provision of record/documentation to counsel for the accused; and perhaps most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges, when they do not possess the requisite training or capacity to do so. Imagine the converse if your mind cannot process the nature or magnitude of the problem: judges being sent to defend our borders with a copy of the Constitution. If that is laughable, so is the idea that those tasked with defending Pakistan against external aggression, have the training or capacity to dispense justice. Different organs of the State/Government have differing responsibilities — for good reason.

Following the horrific cold-blooded murder of Pakistan’s children in the Army Public School (APS) terrorist attack, the nation was traumatized and that trauma resulted in poor decision-making (there were only a handful of people who chose principle over panic – the late Asma Jahangir included of course). If anything was Pakistan’s “9/11”, it was that absolutely tragic mass murder of this country’s children. Anyone who recalls the waves of terrorism that engulfed Pakistan, and the indiscriminate military operations ostensibly aimed at countering that terrorism, will remember that despite us ceding our civil liberties by allowing the 21^st Constitutional Amendment, we were not safe then and we are not safe now. In fact, even after our 9/11, we refused to course correct. Ehsanullah Ehsan – the man we were told made it necessary for us to surrender our civil liberties – roams free while a young man who stole a peacock from the Corps Commander House Lahore is languishing in prison. So in the eyes of the state, the value of the Corps Commander’s peacock far outweighs the value of human life – in fact a Pakistani child’s life.

In a June 2016 briefing paper by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), titled “Military Injustice in Pakistan,” it was observed that “Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.” It would appear that Law Minister Adam Namer Tarar was in a deep slumber from 2015 till date because there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for why he is actively misleading the public today with entirely false statements claiming that Pakistan’s military courts comply with international minimum protections for fair trial and due process. This is not only disingenuous but also in breach of the Minister’s oath, which places on him the obligation to “do right to all manner of people, according to Law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” That “all manner of people” includes all of Pakistan’s citizens, irrespective of whether they are Baloch students, activists of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) or even political workers of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI).

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are biased and heavily dependent on the whims of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal, and most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges.

Such barefaced defense of the unjustifiable isn’t limited to the Law Minister. The Government machinery has gone into overdrive to defend military court trials of civilians, which they themselves will likely be the victims of a few years from now. One must remember to ask the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant Mr. Atta Tarar how he feels about the “three rights of appeal” in that eventuality. After all, in Pakistan, we only seem to care if and when we become victims of an injustice.

In a country where even the mildest of criticism of the military high command can result in trial by court martial, it is alarming that the entire civilian set up (that holds power as a trust for the people of Pakistan) is performing mental gymnastics to deal a final blow to any prospect of civilian supremacy or control. 

Action against May 9 rioters 

The acts that took place on 9 and 10 May are nothing more than offences triable under the Pakistan Penal Code – they neither require trials by anti-terrorism courts nor court martial trials. To suggest that acts of arson or attacks on public property – criminal offenses under the Penal Code – require civilians to be subjected to trials by military officers, who do not even have basic understanding of the law, is beyond absurd and dangerous.

One need only recall the enforced disappearance and secret trial of human rights defender, Idrees Khattak, resulting in his continued incarceration. In November 2019, Idrees Khattak was forcibly disappeared and there was no information available on his fate or whereabouts up until several months later. In June 2020, it was discovered that Idrees Khattak was in the custody of the agencies working under the Ministry of Defence, in connection with a case under the Official Secrets Act. What followed exactly, no one knows (due to the inherent non-transparency and secrecy that surrounds military courts which is not denied but in fact justified on grounds of “confidentiality” and “national security”). However, Idrees Khattak was tried and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. He is not the only civilian who has been subjected to biased and opaque court martial proceedings. In Pakistan, where all power rests with Rawalpindi (with zero accountability for exercise of that power), there can never be even the remotest possibility of fair trial of civilians by court martial.

Have civilian courts failed to serve justice?

There is no weight in the argument being deployed by the civilian face of the present martial law to justify court martial of civilians. However, so that the uninterrupted flow of disinformation can be countered, the same is addressed below. The main (and rather audacious) line of argument adopted by those who lectured us on giving “respect to the vote”, is that the ordinary courts have failed to dispense justice and so there is a need for military courts. 

First, this flawed argument presumes (incorrectly) that military courts ensure fair dispensation of justice. This is contrary to the facts, research, judicial record and our history. Second, these courts which are being looked down upon by the civilian leadership are the same ordinary courts that are flooded each time it rains, where lawyers, judges and litigants alike sit for hours on end, covered in dirt and sweat in a tiny court room, functioning within a system that is heavily overburdened as a result of both frivolous/fake cases by the State against its own citizens and a refusal by the very same State to allocate sufficient funds/resources for functioning of the judiciary. Further, these are the same courts that rely on effective and timely investigations to proceed. How effective will those investigations be when investigating officers carry out the same on their own personal expense (with no proper reimbursement) because each successive government refuses to treat them as public functionaries, deserving of dignity in their work? Where for several decades the bulk of this country’s resources have been misallocated towards defense and defense-related expenditures, and luxuries for the ruling elite, what court system can deliver justice in these circumstances? More importantly, is it even reasonable to have this expectation when the civil-military imbalance has resulted in complete disintegration of all civilian institutions? And finally, with constant interference in the judiciary, brazen flouting of court orders, and intimidation of judges, by the military establishment, are we really to expect that those who dismantled our civilian structure will adhere to fair trial and due process guarantees in a system run entirely on their whims and wishes?

When the ordinary criminal law punishes arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial.

There is no dispute over the poor functioning of our ordinary courts, however, military courts are not – and can never be – a solution to the problem because they are in fact an illustration of the State’s skewed priorities that have caused the problem in the first place. It is truly baffling why the civilian government is insistent on defending what is glaringly unconstitutional. Is the desire to completely dismantle and punish the PTI really greater than the desire for civilian supremacy? And is that desire to dismantle still greater than the desire for self-preservation of civilians/politicians in the long run?

Amidst all the propaganda and miscalculated defense of military court trials of civilians, it is pertinent to remember that when the ordinary criminal law protects against, and punishes, arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial. To do so is also contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution, as held in the Waris Ali Case (2017 SCMR 1572): “The phrase ‘to be treated in accordance with law’ includes that every citizen must be dealt with according to law applicable to him, subject of course to the facts and circumstances of the case. If any citizen is triable under the ordinary penal law of the land, then treating him harshly under special law, not clearly applicable to him, would be a violation of the command of the Constitution.” 

Unfortunately however, the theater of the absurd continues in Pakistan as the climate of fear is at an all-time high. Politicians scramble to snatch the polish out of each other’s hands while the boots reward such servility by momentarily lifting their weight off the polisher’s neck. Tomorrow, each one of the politicians knows that the might of the boot will once again endanger their very own existence, but the choice is pettiness and vengefulness over reason. The delight of watching their opponents suffer (like they suffered in the past) is too good an opportunity to miss. And so it goes on and on, but real power (and exercise of that power with impunity) remains with the military establishment. 

Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir

The writer is an Islamabad-based lawyer and human rights activist.

The post Trial By Firing Squad: Prosecuting Civilians in Military Courts is Unconstitutional appeared first on Dissent Today.