How Pakistan’s in absentia convictions are becoming tools of global repression

In the vibrant newsrooms of New York, London, and Washington, journalists sip coffee and analyse global events with the confidence that physical distance offers safety and perspective — for a growing number of Pakistani journalists living abroad, that assumption is no longer valid. 

In early 2026, Pakistan’s legal apparatus extended its reach far beyond its own borders, delivering severe in absentia convictions and life sentences against exiled journalists and commentators. 

These convictions, rooted in coverage of domestic unrest, mark a significant escalation in the state’s prosecution of dissent and signal a strategic use of anti-terrorism and penal codes to silence critical voices overseas.

The sentences, issued by an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad on January 2, 2026, stunned media circles and human rights organisations worldwide. 

Four journalists — Sabir Shakir, Shaheen Sehbai, Wajahat Saeed Khan, and Moeed Pirzada — were each handed double life sentences, hefty fines, and the status of “traitor” for allegedly inciting violence during the May 2023 protests that followed the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. 

The verdicts were rendered despite none of the convicted having been formally notified, subpoenaed, or given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves in court.

The May 9, 2023, protests, triggered by Khan’s arrest on corruption charges, quickly escalated into a nationwide crisis, with demonstrators targeting government and military installations. 

In response, the government launched a sweeping crackdown on critics, political opponents, and media figures perceived to be sympathetic to Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Hundreds were arrested, often under broad anti-terrorism statutes.

The Islamabad anti-terrorism court’s January 2026 verdicts went further, targeting journalists who had left Pakistan years before the protests. 

Sabir Shakir, well-known for his YouTube presence and formerly with ARY News, Shaheen Sehbai, a U.S.-based freelancer, Wajahat Saeed Khan, a digital media journalist in the United States, and British-Pakistani Moeed Pirzada were convicted without being informed of any proceedings or presented with evidence. 

In a joint statement issued on January 6, the four denied the legitimacy of the rulings, noting they were never notified of charges, hearing dates, or allowed legal representation.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) labelled these verdicts “absurd” and a stark warning that the use of anti-terrorism laws to stifle information reaches beyond Pakistan’s borders. 

According to RSF, none of the journalists was notified of the “digital terrorism” charges or provided access to defend themselves, a process the organisation characterised as a misuse of judicial power.

For the journalists themselves, the consequences extend well beyond reputational damage. National identity documents have been cancelled, passports revoked, bank accounts frozen, and arrest warrants issued in absentia. 

Shaheen Sehbai, with 1.8 million followers on X, learned of his sentence through media reports and had his Pakistani passport and national identity card annulled. 

Sabir Shakir reported that his and his wife’s bank accounts were frozen, and that intermediaries linked to the military establishment had offered to drop charges if he ceased critical reporting.

Ahmad Noorani, another Pakistan-based investigative journalist now in exile, faced an arrest warrant in early December 2025 for allegedly spreading “propaganda” about Pakistan’s army on social media. 

Noorani’s situation illustrates the broader strategy: legal action at home paired with repercussions for family members. His brothers were abducted from his Islamabad home in March 2025 and disappeared for more than a month. They have faced ongoing harassment, travel restrictions, and job loss since their release.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented similar patterns of legal harassment and intimidation, emphasising that the use of anti-terror and penal laws against journalists and critics both inside and outside Pakistan signals a deeper erosion of press freedom and judicial independence.

Critics of these in absentia convictions argue they undermine Pakistan’s constitutional guarantees and contravene international legal standards. 

Fair trial rights, including notification of charges, access to evidence, and the ability to present a defence, are foundational to both domestic jurisprudence and international human-rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Pakistan is a party.

The International Human Rights Foundation (IHRF) expressed serious concern about the procedural flaws in these cases, noting that proceedings conducted without transparency or basic procedural safeguards cannot be considered legitimate. 

IHRF highlighted that the use of counterterrorism frameworks against journalists residing abroad reflects a troubling pattern of judicial harassment and transnational repression.

Adding to these concerns are recent constitutional changes that have further entrenched executive and military power, potentially diminishing judicial independence. 

Human-rights bodies have warned that such amendments risk undermining democratic governance and the separation of powers, reinforcing the impression that courts are becoming tools for political ends.

The targeting of journalists in exile is not an isolated phenomenon. 

In July 2025, an Islamabad court ordered the blocking of 27 YouTube channels under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act for broadcasting “anti-Pakistan” content, including material associated with exiled commentators. 

The crackdown also included restricting internet platforms and censoring online discourse.

These legal measures have co-occurred with allegations of transnational repression — a pattern in which state actors pursue critics abroad through legal pressure, surveillance, and intimidation. 

Pakistan’s critics, including investigative journalists, activists, and former officials, have reported threats, family harassment, and concerted efforts to disrupt their work abroad. 

Cases such as the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya in 2022 and the acid attack on former government adviser Shahzad Akbar in the UK in 2023 underscore the risks faced by dissidents overseas.

International watchdogs, including Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, have documented these trends, noting that enforced disappearances, abductions, and digital surveillance are increasingly correlated with Pakistan’s broader strategy of suppressing dissent. 

The European Union’s monitoring mission has cited human-rights concerns as part of its review of Pakistan’s trade privileges under the GSP+ scheme, which is contingent on compliance with international human-rights conventions.

The convictions in absentia have also reverberated within Pakistan’s media landscape. Major newspapers such as Dawn criticised the sentences as disproportionate in an editorial, emphasising that states should confront irresponsible speech without resorting to excessive penalties. 

The perception among domestic commentators is that the judiciary’s increasing alignment with executive and military interests undermines public trust in the legal system.

These actions have amplified concerns that the legal system is being used to neutralise dissent. 

Hundreds of civilians and political activists have been charged under anti-terrorism laws related to the May 9, 2023, protests, often in ways that blur the line between legitimate dissent and criminal conduct.

By prosecuting exiled journalists in absentia, Pakistani authorities have sent a clear message — geographical distance does not guarantee safety from prosecution or state scrutiny. 

The use of life sentences, asset freezes, passport revocations, and travel blacklists reflects an escalation in efforts to suppress criticism.

For journalists, commentators, and activists who have chosen exile to escape intimidation, these convictions represent a new frontier of legal peril, while for Pakistan’s government and judiciary, they represent a controversial use of legal authority that extends beyond national boundaries and challenges international norms of justice and freedom of expression.