In early January 2026, a judgment by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad handed multiple life sentences to seven journalists, social media commentators, and former military officers on charges of “digital terrorism” related to their alleged roles in the unrest that erupted on May 9, 2023, following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan.
The convictions, delivered in absentia, triggered a wave of criticism from press freedom advocates and human rights organisations, intensifying concerns about due process, judicial independence, and the future of independent expression in Pakistan.
Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra presided over the trial, concluding proceedings in the absence of the accused — most of whom were living abroad and had not returned to face charges.
The court sentenced well-known public figures, including YouTubers Adil Raja and Syed Akbar Hussain, journalists Wajahat Saeed Khan, Sabir Shakir, and Shaheen Sehbai, commentator Haider Raza Mehdi, and analyst Moeed Pirzada to two consecutive life terms each on accusations that their online commentary promoted fear and unrest and constituted waging or abetting war against Pakistan under the country’s anti-terrorism framework.
These sentences also came with substantial fines and additional prison terms imposed under various legal provisions.
The court ordered that the convicts be arrested and sent to prison should they return to Pakistan, and allowed them the right to file appeals within seven days before the Islamabad High Court.
Background: May 2023 unrest and digital accusations
The charges against the journalists and commentators stem from widespread protests and violent demonstrations that followed the brief detention of Imran Khan, the former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
On May 9, 2023, supporters of Khan clashed with police and targeted military installations and state property in a wave of unrest that spread across several cities. The demonstrations saw attacks on key institutions and ignited a broad government and military crackdown on protesters, party members and critical voices.
In the aftermath, authorities registered numerous cases under counterterrorism and other laws against those believed to have incited violence or supported the unrest through speeches or online content.
Official statements said the accused had “committed digital terrorism” by allegedly using social media and digital platforms to incite violence and cultivate public fear.
Criticism over process and press freedom concerns
The convictions have drawn notable criticism from international human rights bodies and press freedom advocates, who argue that the legal process raises serious questions about due process, transparency, and fundamental rights.
The International Human Rights Foundation (IHRF) submitted a statement to United Nations mechanisms expressing “serious concern” regarding the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, asserting that the accused were not properly notified of charges nor given access to evidence or meaningful opportunities to defend themselves.
IHRF highlighted that such actions could undermine constitutional guarantees and Pakistan’s obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The foundation further noted that these convictions occurred amid broader constitutional changes in Pakistan that critics say weaken judicial independence and tilt the balance of power toward military authority.
It also described a pattern of judicial harassment and transnational repression, particularly where counterterrorism frameworks are applied to journalists and dissenting voices living abroad.
These developments, IHRF argued, could intimidate critics far beyond Pakistan’s borders and distort the legal basis for prosecuting speech and commentary.
Civil liberties advocates — including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) — have long warned that such investigations and prosecutions may amount to retaliation against critical reporting rather than bona fide counterterrorism efforts.
CPJ Asia programme coordinator Beh Lih Yi previously stated that authorities should drop investigations and end what the organisation described as ‘relentless intimidation and censorship’ of the media.
Local media reactions
Leading Pakistani media outlets also weighed in on the gravity of the sentences.
In an editorial, Dawn, one of the country’s oldest English-language newspapers, described life imprisonment for journalists and commentators as an “extreme move,” arguing that such harsh punishment, especially under anti-terrorism laws and following trials in absentia, could undermine press freedom and legitimate dissent.
The newspaper highlighted that while some criticism of events may have crossed red lines, the use of the most severe criminal sanctions against speech-related activities risked far-reaching consequences for the media landscape.
The editorial also drew attention to what it termed selective accountability, noting it was ironic that several of those now penalised had previously supported PTI during its rise and had not faced similar legal consequences for their commentary against political opponents.
This, Dawn argued, further complicates perceptions of proportionality and fairness in the state’s approach to media regulation.
Trials in absentia and legal safeguards
The procedure of conducting trials in absentia has intensified concerns over due process.
Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, courts may try individuals who deliberately evade proceedings if their absence is deemed to hinder justice, but critics argue that this provision, when applied without appropriate safeguards, can deprive defendants of basic rights to defend themselves and contest evidence.
In this case, most of the convicted were living abroad and were not present for any stage of their trial, prompting questions about the transparency and fairness of the judicial process.
Statements attributed to some of the convicted, such as journalist Wajahat Saeed Khan, allege that they were not served summons, denied access to counsel of their choosing, and were given only a limited window to appeal without full written judgments being formally issued — practices that, if accurate, could impair the ability to exercise legal rights fully.
Broader context of press freedom in Pakistan
These developments take place against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny of press freedom and civic space in Pakistan. Journalists and media organisations have faced a range of pressures in recent years, including legal accusations, threats, and constraints on reporting.
Beyond the life sentences, broader crackdowns following the May 2023 unrest have resulted in hundreds of criminal cases and arrests of political activists and dissenters under anti-terrorism laws or military-linked judicial processes.
Critics argue that the frequent invocation of counterterrorism statutes in cases involving speech and political commentary blurs the line between legitimate security concerns and the suppression of dissent.
They point to patterns where digital discourse — often polarising in content but rooted in political commentary — is treated through the same legal lens as violent action against the state, raising fundamental questions about proportionality in legal sanctions.
International monitoring and future trajectory
International human rights bodies and press advocacy organisations have called for enhanced monitoring of Pakistan’s legal actions against journalists and commentators, urging transparency in judicial proceedings and reaffirmation of due process rights for all individuals, including those living abroad.
The IHRF urged Pakistan to publish written judgments and legal reasoning, provide full disclosure of evidence, and ensure that proceedings targeting journalistic activity and peaceful dissent are not pursued under broad counterterrorism frameworks that could stifle free expression internationally.
As these life sentences await possible appeal in higher courts, the rulings reverberate far beyond the individuals involved.
They raise enduring questions about the balance between state security imperatives and the protection of free speech, due process, and judicial independence in Pakistan’s evolving legal and political context.
Stay updated with the latest news from Greece and around the world on greekcitytimes.com.
Contact our newsroom to share your updates, stories, photos, or videos. Follow GCT on Google News and Apple News.
