When Dissent Becomes Terrorism |
The court verdict sentencing lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband to 17 years in prison has ignited serious legal and constitutional questions that demand careful examination. The length of the sentence alone is startling. But the deeper concern lies in the reasoning behind it: the transformation of political speech into terrorism.
Mazari was convicted over remarks in which she described Pakistan as a “terrorist state,” alleged the existence of “state-run torture cells,” and blamed state institutions for enforced disappearances. The court ruled that her statements “aligned with the agenda” of banned militant organisations such as the Balochistan Liberation Army and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. On that basis, her speech was deemed cyber-terrorism.
This interpretation stretches the boundary between dissent and criminality in ways that cannot be ignored. If speech that undermines confidence in state institutions—or echoes a narrative also advanced by proscribed groups—can constitute terrorism, then the line separating criticism from crime becomes alarmingly elastic.
The essential question is not whether Mazari’s remarks were harsh, provocative, or deeply controversial. They were. The question is whether the law is being applied consistently, proportionately, and within clearly defined limits.
Consider an episode from within the political establishment itself. On 24 December 2025, former Senator Mushtaq Ahmed responded to the recovery of forcibly disappeared professor Shafeeq Zahri by stating plainly that security agencies were responsible and that “enforced disappearances are equivalent to state and governmental terrorism.” The substance of this allegation mirrors the accusation for which Mazari was convicted.
Yet the senator’s remarks were treated as political commentary, not prosecuted as a criminal offence.
Another revealing example comes from 17 March 2025, when Maulana Fazlur Rehman described the government as a “puppet” regime offering “scapegoats to the US,” referring to the extradition of alleged ISIS-K leader Sanaullah Ghafari. He suggested that terrorism cases could be manipulated for foreign patronage and political survival.
Patriotism, Power And The State: When Loyalty Demands Dissent
Such rhetoric—that the state fabricates or instrumentalises terrorism........