July 6, 2026
by Fozia Kulsoom Rana
ISLAMABAD
In a recent podcast on her official YouTube channel, senior journalist Munizae Jahangir, gave a detailed analysis of the life imprisonment awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) to Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) leaders Dr Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shahjee.
The discussion featured Supreme Court senior advocate and Pakistan Bar Council member Munir Ahmed Kakar, and Balochistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Jaideen Dashti. Both lawyers questioned the trial and the judgment, arguing that they were inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution.
The verdict triggered a strong public and legal reaction in Balochistan and Sindh. Traders observed a province-wide shutter-down strike in Balochistan, while the Sindh Bar Council described the judgment as being contrary to the principles of law and justice. Prominent political leaders from the province have also condemned the decision.
‘Case based on contradictions‘
Discussing the legal aspects of the case, Dashti claimed that the prosecution’s case was based on contradictory statements. He said that the case stemmed from the killing of Shabbir Ahmed in Gwadar, a Frontier Corps (FC) official, on July 29, 2024. He said the original first information report (FIR) accused Dr Mahrang only of delivering an inflammatory speech.
“The prosecution later filed a supplementary statement changing the date of the incident from July 29 to July 27, and naming a man identified as ‘Nauman’ as the principal accused,” he said. He argued that after the court had acquitted Nauman under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to lack of evidence, it remained unclear on what legal basis Dr Mahrang and Shahjee were being sentenced to life imprisonment when, according to him, no direct involvement in the killing had been established against either of them.
“Nauman had previously been a missing person and was only later made part of the case, raising additional questions about the prosecution’s case,” said Dashti. “Neither the text nor any video recording of the allegedly inflammatory speech, which were meant to be the basis of the conviction, were included in the court record.”
‘A faceless trial’
Meanwhile, described the proceedings as a “faceless trial”, Kakar said that the case was heard inside a prison through video link instead of in an open courtroom.
According to him, the judge, prosecutor and defence counsel participated from different locations, a procedure that, he argued, raised questions about the transparency of the trial.
He added that although the prosecution maintained that hundreds of people were present at the scene, no local or independent civilian was produced as a witness. Instead, he said, all prosecution witnesses were government officials or FC personnel.
Kakar added that the accused had already approached the Balochistan High Court after expressing a lack of confidence in the trial judge. Despite this, he claimed, a state-appointed defence counsel was appointed within days and the verdict was subsequently announced.
“Concerns about possible pressure on the judicial system cannot be ignored under the prevailing circumstances,” he said. “However, if the evidence was independently reviewed by the superior judiciary, the judgment would be difficult to sustain.”
The podcast concluded by stating that the Balochistan Bar Council’s legal team was preparing to challenge the verdict before the Balochistan High Court and would also seek suspension of the sentences.
Concluding the discussion, Jahangir described the case as a high-profile matter and said its legal developments would continue to be monitored in keeping with the principles of independent journalism.