ISLAMABAD — An Islamabad Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on October 29, 2026 sentenced prominent human-rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha to an effective 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment each, over an alleged 2024 disruption of security arrangements for England’s touring cricket team. Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict inside Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, where the couple was tried in custody, Dawn reported.

What happened in 2024

The case arose from an incident on October 25, 2024 in Islamabad, during England’s cricket tour of Pakistan. Police had placed barriers along a route used for the team’s secure movement. Prosecutors allege Mazari and Chattha removed barriers at or near Zero Point/Faisal Avenue and obstructed officers, according to The Nation.

The FIR was registered at Aabpara Police Station the same day. Prosecutors framed the conduct as removing security barriers, obstructing police and contributing to public disorder during the movement of a foreign team treated as a state guest.

The verdict and sentences

The ATC convicted both accused on three counts and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, making the effective term 10 years rather than the nominal aggregate of 13. It also applied Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which credits time already spent in custody, Business Recorder reported.

The court acquitted the couple of separate allegations under Sections 506(ii), 120-B, 148 and 149 of the PPC — criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, rioting with a dangerous weapon and membership of an unlawful assembly — saying those elements were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, Front Line Defenders noted.

Why the court called it terrorism

Judge Sipra found the couple acted with a “common objective and shared intention” to pressure law-enforcement officials and undermine security protocols. The judgment stressed that freedom of movement is subject to law and that no one may assault police personnel, Dawn reported.

Removing a barrier could appear to be “a very common nature ordinary type of incident” — yet the context of a visiting team, viewed as a state guest, made it capable of creating a sense of terror.Paraphrase of the ATC judgment, as reported by Front Line Defenders

The court also invoked the 2009 attack on Sri Lanka’s cricket team in Lahore as context for the sensitivity of cricket-team security in Pakistan. A central criticism from rights groups is that prosecutors relied exclusively on police witnesses, with no independent civilian witness despite the alleged incident occurring on a public road during morning traffic, per Front Line Defenders.

The jail-trial controversy

The trial was held inside Adiala Jail rather than in an open courtroom. The defence says this restricted access for lawyers, family, journalists and the public, and that the accused were at times placed in a courtroom cage, impairing communication with counsel and the judge.

The couple challenged both the jail trial and the terrorism provisions in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and then the Supreme Court, after the IHC declined on October 19 to stay proceedings. Their counsel argued the FIR remained concealed for about two years, that a terrorism provision was added later to originally bailable allegations, and that the case resurfaced right after they secured bail in another matter, IANS reported.

They approached the Supreme Court on October 26. The ATC announced its verdict three days later; Front Line Defenders says a transfer application was still pending, though the trial court treated the filed copy as insufficiently proved on the record.

Wider legal context

This is not their only conviction. In January 2026, an Islamabad sessions court sentenced each to a combined 17 years under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), over social-media posts prosecutors characterised as anti-state and as inciting ethnic animosity concerning Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. On September 17, 2026, the Supreme Court suspended those sentences and ordered their release on bail.

Front Line Defenders alleges that, before the release orders could be executed, police rearrested them inside Adiala Jail in a separate March 2025 protest case, to which an Anti-Terrorism Act provision was later added. The defence says the cricket-security case was used to keep them detained despite the bail order; the court treated the 2024 incident as a distinct criminal matter.

• Oct 25, 2024Barrier incident in Islamabad; FIR registered at Aabpara Police Station.England’s team was touring Pakistan; police had cordoned a secure route.
• March 2025Separate protest case.Front Line Defenders says an Anti-Terrorism Act provision was later added to this case.
• January 2026PECA conviction: 17 years each.Based on social-media posts about Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Dawn
• Sept 17, 2026Supreme Court suspends PECA sentences, orders bail.Rights groups allege rearrest inside Adiala Jail before release could be executed.
• Oct 19, 2026IHC declines to stay the trial.
• Oct 26, 2026Couple petitions the Supreme Court against the terror trial.IANS report
• Oct 29, 2026ATC verdict: effective 10 years each.Dawn · The Tribune (verdict reserved)

In their Section 342 CrPC statements, both pleaded not guilty and said they were being persecuted for their work, describing themselves as “prisoners of conscience.” Mazari is known for representing victims of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killings and custodial abuse, including Baloch rights defenders. Chattha has represented blasphemy defendants, survivors of sexual violence, death-row prisoners and families of the disappeared, and previously worked with the Asma Jahangir Legal Aid Cell and Justice Project Pakistan, AP reported.

Reactions

Amnesty International’s Yasmine Ahmed called the convictions an “indictment of Pakistan’s justice system,” saying the proceedings tested the judiciary’s commitment to fair trial standards, Dawn reported.

Front Line Defenders described the use of terrorism charges for an alleged barrier removal, at the end of an accelerated jail trial, as a “gross misuse” of counter-terrorism law and part of a pattern of judicial harassment. It called for their immediate release, access to counsel and medical care, and an independent investigation into alleged ill-treatment.

What comes next

The legally decisive question is whether interfering with barriers around a protected cricket convoy can meet the threshold for terrorism under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The ATC held that it could, because it endangered a state guest’s security and involved pressure on police. The defence and several rights organisations contend the evidence and procedure do not support turning a roadblock dispute into a terrorism conviction.

The verdict is likely to face appellate scrutiny, particularly on the terrorism charge, jail-trial conditions, access to counsel, and whether proceedings should have been stayed while Supreme Court petitions were pending.