A Pakistani anti-terrorism court has sentenced eight journalists and social media commentators to life imprisonment in absentia, ruling that their online activity in support of former prime minister Imran Khan amounted to terrorism-related offences.
The convictions are tied to cases registered after violent nationwide protests on May 9, 2023, when supporters of Khan attacked military installations following his brief arrest. The unrest marked a turning point in Pakistan’s political crisis, prompting a sweeping crackdown by the government and the military on Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, as well as on critics in the media and online. Authorities have relied heavily on anti-terrorism legislation and, in some cases, military courts to prosecute hundreds accused of incitement and attacks on state institutions.
In its ruling on Friday, the court said the actions of the accused “fell within the ambit of terrorism” under Pakistani law, stating that their online content promoted “fear and unrest” in society. Court documents indicate that most of those convicted are believed to be outside Pakistan and did not appear during the proceedings.
Those sentenced include former army officers turned YouTubers Adil Raja and Syed Akbar Hussain, journalists Wajahat Saeed Khan, Sabir Shakir and Shaheen Sehbai, commentator Haider Raza Mehdi, and political analyst Moeed Pirzada. The court also imposed additional prison terms and fines, ordering further jail time if the fines are not paid.
Reuters said it was unable to reach the journalists or their lawyers for comment. Media freedom advocates have sharply criticised the prosecutions. The Committee to Protect Journalists said in 2023 that the investigations represented retaliation against critical reporting. “Authorities must immediately drop these investigations and cease the relentless intimidation and censorship of the media,” CPJ Asia programme coordinator Beh Lih Yi said at the time.
All of the sentences remain subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court, a process that could determine whether the landmark ruling stands or is overturned.
