— Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha sent back to jail within hours of top court suspending 17-year sentences; lawyers, journalists decry ‘mockery of justice’
By Irum Saleem
The dramatic rearrest of human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, within hours of the Supreme Court suspending their sentences and ordering their release on bail has raised fresh questions over the rule of law, the authority of judicial orders and the use of successive criminal cases to keep accused persons behind bars.
The couple, who had been serving a combined 17-year sentence in a controversial social media posts case, briefly walked out of Adiala jail on Thursday after a two-member Supreme Court bench suspended their sentences and granted them bail against surety bonds of Rs200,000 each.
But their release proved remarkably short-lived.
Soon after the couple was released, Islamabad police arrested them again in connection with another case registered at Kohsar police station on March 22, 2025. They were subsequently produced before an anti-terrorism court late at night, where the police sought their 30-day physical remand.
The court rejected the request and instead sent Imaan and Hadi to jail on judicial remand.
The development immediately triggered an outcry among lawyers, journalists and rights activists, who questioned how a person released pursuant to a Supreme Court order could be taken into custody again within hours.
From release order to another arrest
The Supreme Court had earlier on Thursday suspended the sentences imposed on the couple in January in the social media posts case and ordered their release on bail pending the Islamabad High Court’s final decision on their appeals.
The sessions court had sentenced the couple to a total of 17 years under multiple provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). The sentences included 10 years under Section 10 relating to cyber terrorism, five years under Section 9 concerning glorification of an offence and two years under Section 26-A relating to false or fake information. The sentences were to run concurrently.
The Supreme Court’s intervention came after prolonged litigation over the suspension of their sentences. The court had previously directed the Islamabad High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, while the couple’s counsel complained about repeated adjournments.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, who was part of the two-member bench along with Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, questioned the delays during Thursday’s proceedings before the court ultimately suspended the sentences and granted bail.
Yet, before the relief could translate into actual freedom, another criminal case was invoked.
The fresh case
The Kohsar police case relates to allegations that Imaan and Hadi participated in a protest, chanted anti-government slogans and blocked roads. According to reports, the FIR was registered on March 22, 2025 on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
The case invokes several provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including offences relating to disobedience of an order, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation and obstruction or use of force against public servants, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The fact that the case had been registered well before Thursday’s Supreme Court proceedings has become a central point of criticism from lawyers and journalists, who have questioned why the matter was not dealt with earlier if the authorities considered the allegations serious enough to warrant continued detention.
The authorities, however, proceeded against the couple after their release from Adiala jail, resulting in their immediate return to custody.
‘Law of the jungle’
The rearrest prompted an unusually sharp reaction from sections of the legal and journalistic community.
Digital rights advocate Usama Khilji summed up his reaction on social media with the blunt phrase: “Welcome to Pakistan where law of the jungle is supreme.”
Lawyer Rida Hosain questioned what the development meant for the sanctity of judicial orders.
“Imaan and Hadi’s continued incarceration sends a broader, disgraceful message. No court order makes a difference if the state wants you in jail,” she said on X.
“This should be frightening for any person that believes in the rule of law,” she added.
Lawyer Reema Omer described the development as “heartbreaking and terrifying”, pointing out that the couple had been granted bail and their sentences suspended by the Supreme Court on the same day.
She said the two had been sent to judicial custody by an anti-terrorism court for 14 days in a separate case relating to an alleged unlawful assembly.
Questions over successive cases
Journalist Matiullah Jan also questioned the timing of the fresh arrest and why the case registered in 2025 had not apparently been pursued alongside the other proceedings against the couple.
He alleged that the development represented “an act of mala fide” on the part of the government and argued that the fresh arrest had effectively neutralised the Supreme Court’s order granting relief.
He further alleged that the episode demonstrated a breakdown in the rule of law and criticised what he described as the role of state institutions in the couple’s continued incarceration.
Such assertions remain allegations and political or legal opinions; the authorities have relied on the existence of a separate FIR and proceeded with the case through the anti-terrorism court.
A troubling legal sequence
The controversy has therefore moved beyond the original social media case.
At the heart of the latest dispute is a simple but consequential question: what practical meaning does a superior court’s order of release have if another case can result in an immediate rearrest before the accused can meaningfully exercise that liberty?
The state has the legal authority to investigate separate allegations and pursue independent criminal proceedings. But the timing of the latest arrest has generated concern among lawyers and rights advocates because it came almost immediately after the Supreme Court had suspended the couple’s sentences and ordered their release on bail.
The episode has consequently become a test not merely of the individual case involving Imaan and Hadi, but of the wider relationship between executive action, police powers and judicial authority.
For critics, the sequence represents an alarming erosion of the principle that court orders must have practical effect.
For the authorities, the existence of a separate FIR provides the legal basis for the fresh proceedings.
The anti-terrorism court’s decision to reject the requested 30-day physical remand but send the couple to judicial custody indicates that the latest case remains before the courts and will now have to be tested through the judicial process.
Bar bodies react
The controversy has also spilled into the legal community. The Islamabad Bar Association has announced a boycott of court proceedings in the federal capital on Saturday in protest against the couple’s rearrest following the Supreme Court’s bail order.
The reaction reflects the growing concern within the legal fraternity that the issue is no longer confined to the allegations against two individuals, but concerns the effectiveness of judicial relief itself.
The couple’s case has already attracted international scrutiny. Amnesty International, in a statement issued on Friday, criticised the rearrest and called for their release, while noting that the two had been detained for months before the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Thus, within hours, a Supreme Court order intended to provide judicial relief turned into another episode of incarceration — leaving lawyers and rights activists asking whether Pakistan’s legal system is governed ultimately by court orders and due process, or by the ability of the state to find another route to keep a person behind bars.
