.jpg)
Veteran journalists question sentencing of BYC leaders
JournalismPakistan.com | Published: 24 June 2026 | JP Staff Report
Join our WhatsApp channel
Veteran journalists expressed concern that sentencing of BYC leaders Dr Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shah Jee involved denial of chosen counsel, failure to record a petition against the judge, unresolved constitutional petitions and calls for judicial review.Summary
ISLAMABAD — A forum of veteran journalists has expressed concern over the sentencing of Dr. Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shah Jee of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), arguing that the proceedings raise questions about fair trial guarantees, legal representation, and judicial transparency.
In a statement, the journalists said the defendants were allegedly denied the right to be represented by counsel of their choice and that objections raised during the proceedings were not fully addressed before the sentences were announced. They maintained that the issues cited warrant further judicial scrutiny and review.
Concerns over legal representation
The forum said Dr. Mahrang Baloch had informed prison authorities that she did not wish to accept state-appointed legal counsel because her own lawyers were available. According to the statement, a state-appointed lawyer was nevertheless assigned to her case.
The veteran journalists further argued that Pakistan's constitutional protections and international commitments regarding fair trial rights require that defendants be allowed adequate legal representation and access to due process safeguards.
Calls for judicial review
The statement also referred to objections reportedly raised during the trial, including a petition challenging the presiding judge. The journalists said the petition was not placed on the court record and that subsequent constitutional petitions and applications seeking urgent hearings remained unresolved before sentencing.
They contended that when legal objections and questions regarding judicial procedure remain pending, their timely consideration is essential to maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
Among those endorsing the statement were Hussain Naqi, Farhatullah Babar, Zahid Hussain, Mustansar Javaid, Anwar Iqbal, Ali Ahmad Khan, Mazhar Abbas, Amir Wasim, Dr. Touseef Ahmed Khan, Nasir Zaidi, Asmatullah Niazi, Munizae Jahangir, Mahnaz Rahman, Sohail Sangi, Nasir Malick, Adnan Rehmat, G.N. Mughal, Waris Raza, Habib Khan Ghori, Fouzia Shahid, Lala Asad, Lala Rehman, Ayub Jan Sarhandi, Shafiq Awan, Abdul Sattar, Mohammed Riaz, and Azad Syed.
Demand for fair trial guarantees
The journalists called for the sentences to be suspended pending a transparent and independent review of the trial process. They urged judicial authorities to ensure that defendants are able to exercise their right to legal counsel of their choice and that any constitutional objections are fully adjudicated.
The forum also echoed concerns previously raised by the Balochistan Bar Council and called for an impartial review of the proceedings by relevant judicial and constitutional forums.
In the same statement, the veteran journalists called for a fair trial and speedy disposal of appeals filed by lawyer and rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, who were sentenced to prison in a separate case linked to social media posts. The forum said their appeals have yet to be heard despite repeated efforts by their legal counsel.
The statement concluded by reaffirming support for constitutional supremacy, judicial independence, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.
WHY THIS MATTERS: The intervention by a group of senior journalists highlights continuing concerns within Pakistan's media and civil society circles about due process, access to legal representation, and transparency in high-profile cases. Such debates can influence broader discussions about the rule of law, judicial accountability, and the protection of constitutional rights.
ATTRIBUTION: Reporting by JournalismPakistan, based on a public statement issued by a forum of veteran journalists on June 24, 2026.
PHOTO: AI-generated; for illustrative purposes only.
Key Points
- Forum of veteran journalists raised concerns over the sentencing of BYC leaders.
- Allegation that defendants were denied the right to counsel of their choice.
- A state-appointed lawyer was assigned despite reported refusal of that counsel.
- A petition challenging the presiding judge was reportedly not placed on court record.
- Constitutional petitions and urgent applications remained unresolved before sentencing.
- The forum urged further judicial scrutiny and review of the proceedings.
Key Questions & Answers
What are the main concerns raised by the journalists?
They say the defendants were denied counsel of choice, procedural objections were not recorded or addressed, and pending constitutional petitions remained unresolved before sentencing.
Who are the defendants mentioned in the statement?
The statement refers to Dr Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah Shah Jee of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC).
Did the journalists call for any specific action?
Yes, they urged further judicial scrutiny and review of the case given the reported procedural and representation issues.
What procedural issues were highlighted about the trial?
Objections during proceedings, a petition against the presiding judge not being placed on record, and unresolved constitutional petitions were cited as procedural shortcomings.
Relevant Topics
Ask AI: Understand this story your way
AI EnabledDig deeper, ask anything — get instant context, background, and clarity.
Disclaimer: This feature is powered by AI and is intended to help readers explore and understand news stories more easily. While we strive for accuracy, AI-generated responses may occasionally be incomplete or reflect limitations in the underlying model. This feature does not represent the editorial views of JournalismPakistan. For our full, verified reporting, please refer to the original article.
