Unedited, emphasis added:
FOR THE RECORD: This joint statement is to put the record straight otherwise the charges, trials, cinvictions and sentences given by a Kangaroo pseudo military court in Pakistan are not even worth the stinky gutter:
January 6, 2026
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING PURPORTED CONVICTIONS ISSUED IN ABSENTIA AGAINST PAKISTANI JOURNALISTS AND DISSIDENTS
Issued jointly by:
Dr. Moeed Pirzada
Col. (R) Syed Akbar Hussain
Mr. Syed Haider Raza Mehdi
Mr. Sabir Shakir
Mr. Wajahat Saeed Khan
Maj. (R) Adil Farooq Raja, and
Shaheen Sehbai
Context:
Back to statement:
Preamble
We, the undersigned journalists, analysts, and former public servants of Pakistan currently residing abroad, issue this joint statement to place on record our collective position regarding the purported criminal convictions and sentences announced against us in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court in Pakistan, reportedly in connection with the events of 9 May 2023.
This statement is addressed to the international community, including governments, multilateral institutions, human-rights mechanisms, media organisations, and legal observers. It is issued to clarify facts, preserve the record, and seek principled scrutiny under domestic constitutional standards and international law.
1. Non-Recognition of Proceedings Conducted in Absentia Without Due Process
We unequivocally state that we do not recognise the legality, validity, or enforceability of the proceedings or outcomes announced against us.
At no stage were we:
formally notified of any charges or proceedings,
served with summonses or indictments,
informed of hearing dates or venues,
provided access to evidence or allegations,
afforded the opportunity to appear, respond, or instruct counsel of our choosing.
We became aware of these alleged proceedings solely through media reports after sentences had reportedly been pronounced.
Proceedings conducted under such circumstances do not meet the minimum standards of a judicial process and cannot reasonably be regarded as lawful adjudication.
2. Incompatibility with Pakistan’s Constitutional Framework
Pakistan’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including:
the right to be dealt with in accordance with law (Article 4),
the security of person (Article 9),
and the right to a fair trial and due process (Article 10A).
Convictions announced without notice, disclosure, participation, or effective defence are incompatible with these guarantees. Even where domestic law contemplates limited proceedings in a person’s absence, such measures cannot lawfully dispense with notice, representation, or the opportunity to be heard.
Accordingly, the actions in question represent a fundamental departure from constitutional norms, not a permissible exercise of judicial discretion.
3. Violations of International Human-Rights Obligations
Pakistan is a State , a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and is bound by the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
These instruments require, inter alia:
a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal,
equality of arms between prosecution and defence,
the right to be tried in one’s presence,
and the right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing.
Proceedings that lack transparency, participation, and independence cannot satisfy these obligations and are not entitled to international legal recognition.
4. Broader Context: Judicial Harassment and Transnational Repression
We note with concern that respected international press-freedom and human-rights organisations have repeatedly documented patterns in Pakistan involving:
the misuse of anti-terrorism laws against journalists and political critics,
judicial proceedings conducted under apparent executive or military influence,
and efforts to intimidate or silence dissidents residing abroad.
The actions taken against us must be viewed within this broader context, raising serious concerns about judicial independence, proportionality, and political motivation.
5. Accountability and Preservation of Rights
We reserve all legal rights and remedies available to us under:
Pakistan’s constitutional framework,
international human-rights mechanisms,
and applicable foreign legal systems.
This includes the right to seek review, remedy, and accountability through appropriate national and international forums, and to engage relevant UN Special Procedures, treaty bodies, and press-freedom mechanisms.
This statement is issued to formally preserve the record and to ensure that responsibility for these actions—wherever it may lawfully lie—is not obscured by silence or procedural opacity.
6. Requests to the Relevant Authorities
In the interest of transparency and adherence to the rule of law, we call for:
publication of any written judgments and legal reasoning relied upon,
disclosure of alleged evidence and witness material,
confirmation of the legal basis, if any, for proceeding without notice or participation,
and assurances against the use of judicial processes for intimidation or transnational repression.
Closing
Justice derives its legitimacy from fairness, transparency, and independence. Proceedings conducted in secrecy, without participation, and under apparent coercion do not strengthen institutions; they erode them.
We issue this statement not in defiance, but in defence — of law, due process, and the fundamental principle that courts exist to adjudicate, not to intimidate.
Issued jointly and unanimously.
Superior courts ‘may overturn judgement’
https://twitter.com/KhanSaauma/status/2009198610236494270?s=20
Amnesty International release
PAKISTAN: The 27th amendment to the Constitution, passed in November 2025, marks a significant regression and is part of a direct and sustained assault on judicial independence, right to fair trial and the rule of law in Pakistan. The amendment violates international human rights law, particularly undermining the independence of the judiciary and shielding officials from accountability through the provision of lifetime immunity.
@amnesty calls for an urgent review of the constitutional amendment and urges Pakistani authorities to immediately take all necessary measures to safeguard the impartiality, independence and safety of judges, ensuring that they can carry out their judicial functions without any inappropriate or unwarranted interference.
Pakistani authorities must uphold their international human rights obligations, guarantee access to justice and effective remedies, and respect the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Same two guys pull violent stunts in UK against journalists?
Notes:
Pakistan stance
These actions are justified under the country’s anti-terrorism laws, with authorities arguing that the defendants’ digital content incited violence, promoted fear and unrest, and constituted attacks on state institutions. reuters.com
Picture
