Islamabad (The COW News Digital) An anti-terrorism court in Islamabad has sentenced human rights lawyer Iman Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to 10 years in prison each in a case involving alleged interference with government affairs and the removal of barriers.
Judge Tahir Abbas Supra announced the verdict at Adiala Jail, also imposing financial penalties on both defendants under various legal provisions.
According to the case details, the proceedings stemmed from a case registered against Mazari and Chattha on October 25, 2024. The prosecution presented seven witnesses during the trial, while the court had appointed a state counsel to represent the accused.
State counsel Atif Mahmood cross-examined the prosecution witnesses as part of the proceedings. The court formally framed charges against the defendants on October 7, according to the report.
The court imposed fines of Rs50,000 under different sections of the law, in addition to the prison sentences. The verdict stated that the combined sentences under three separate provisions amounted to 13 years. However, after applying the benefit of Section 182, the effective prison term for each defendant was set at 10 years.
The ruling marks a significant development in the case, which began with allegations related to interference with official duties and the removal of barriers. Details of the court’s full reasoning and the specific findings supporting each charge were not included in the available report.
The appointment of state counsel was part of the judicial proceedings, with the appointed lawyer conducting cross-examination of witnesses presented by the prosecution. Seven witnesses were reportedly produced during the trial before the court delivered its decision.
The sentencing is likely to draw attention because Mazari is a prominent human rights lawyer whose legal work and public statements have attracted considerable attention in Pakistan. The case also comes amid continuing debate over legal proceedings involving activists and political figures.
The immediate legal implications of the verdict, including whether the defendants intend to challenge the decision, were not detailed in the report. Further information about the court’s written judgment and any subsequent appeal proceedings may clarify the legal grounds for the sentences.
The court’s order specifies that although the sentences calculated under three separate provisions totalled 13 years, the application of Section 182 reduced the effective term to 10 years for each defendant. Both were also ordered to pay fines under the relevant provisions.
The case now enters a new phase following the announcement of the verdict, with any further legal challenge depending on the steps taken by the defendants and their legal representatives.
