New Delhi, Jan 25, 2026
Pakistan’s criminal justice system, long plagued by chronic delays and a staggering backlog of over 2.4 million pending cases as reported by the Law and Justice Commission, has come under intense scrutiny through a prominent cybercrime trial involving human rights lawyer Iman Zainab Mazari and political activist Hadi Ali Chattha.
The case, initiated in August 2025 under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), exemplifies the tensions between judicial authority, procedural fairness, and selective enforcement.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) registered an FIR on August 22, 2025, accusing the pair of offenses including cyber terrorism, hate speech, and dissemination of illegal content related to social media posts allegedly supporting banned groups and promoting ethnic division, a Eurasia Review report said.
Unlike many PECA cases that lead to swift arrests, the defendants initially avoided detention despite the gravity of the charges. Pre-arrest bail was granted within days, and by September, they secured full protection from arrest.
However, subsequent non-compliance – missing court appearances and public criticism of the judiciary – prompted non-bailable warrants. These warrants were repeatedly cancelled upon appearance or changes in legal representation, a pattern critics describe as preferential treatment rarely extended to ordinary defendants, said the report.
Court records reveal 44 hearing days stretched over four months, with frequent adjournments granted for reasons such as counsel switches, constitutional challenges, and alleged health issues lacking documentation.
Disruptive conduct, including courtroom walkouts and accusations against the presiding judge, led to further postponements and temporary warrant issuances, only for relief to be restored swiftly.
Prosecutors argue the defence employs tactical delays to fatigue the system and politicise a standard criminal matter.
Requests for exemptions, including unverified medical claims, contributed to perceptions of brinkmanship. Superior courts, including the Islamabad High Court and Supreme Court, intervened multiple times to compel progress, issuing unusual directives to address stalls. The trial highlights broader systemic issues.
While high-profile figures receive extended leeway, less prominent accused in similar cybercrime or anti-terrorism cases often face immediate detention for procedural lapses.
Digital rights groups, including the Digital Rights Foundation, criticise PECA for vague provisions and overreach, yet stress that due process requires engagement in court rather than evasion.
The core allegations – specific posts purportedly aligning with proscribed organisations – remain untested through full cross-examination and adjudication.
As one senior lawyer observed, if the speech is lawful, the courtroom is the appropriate venue to demonstrate it. The case transcends the individuals involved, exposing a fundamental conflict: balancing civil liberties against law enforcement imperatives in politically charged matters. Five months on, the proceedings raise deeper questions about trial courts’ ability to maintain control over resistant high-profile defendants.
Extraordinary tolerance risks undermining judicial authority, particularly when met with persistent resistance. The public expects judges to uphold independence from external pressures while enforcing courtroom discipline, it said.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
