A death sentence should demand the most exacting scrutiny a court can provide. Junaid Hafeez has instead spent more than thirteen years in prison while the appeal against his conviction remains unresolved. Pakistan does not have to choose between respect for religion and respect for evidence. In a case carrying the gravest possible penalty, the rule of law requires both.
Hafeez, a former lecturer at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan, was arrested in 2013 over allegations concerning online material. A trial court convicted and sentenced him to death in December 2019 under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code; his appeal was filed in 2020. His conviction has not been overturned, and an appeal hearing is not an acquittal. Yet the time taken to examine that conviction is itself a matter of public concern. Earlier in 2026, Dawn reported that the appeal had again been deferred despite its placement on the Lahore High Court’s priority list.
Accounts circulated following the September 22 hearing say the Lahore High Court issued notices to the prosecution and raised questions about the difference between a Facebook page and a Facebook group, as well as the forensic basis for attributing posts to Hafeez. Those specific proceedings require confirmation from the court’s written order or a reliable court report before they can be stated as established findings. What is clear is why such questions matter: an allegation about online speech cannot answer, by itself, who controlled an account, who authored a post, whether a record is authentic, and whether the prosecution proved each element of the charged offence. An earlier account of the prosecution case itself described a Facebook “page” with a “group” of members, illustrating why precise digital evidence deserves careful examination.
| Established milestone | What the record supports | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Hafeez was arrested over blasphemy allegations. | His detention has lasted more than thirteen years. |
| 2014 | His original defence lawyer, Rashid Rehman, was killed. | The safety of legal representation became inseparable from the case. |
| December 2019 | A trial court sentenced Hafeez to death. | The conviction and sentence require appellate scrutiny. |
| 2020 | His appeal was filed. | The appeal remained pending as reported in September 2026. |
| September 22, 2026 | Accounts supplied from the hearing describe notices and questions about digital evidence. | The precise directions and next date should be checked against the court record. |
Note: The final row reflects reported accounts of that day’s proceedings, rather than a verified written order. The earlier chronology is supported by published reporting and the case record summarized by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
What the appeal must decide
The central issue is neither whether a social media campaign declares Hafeez innocent nor whether another campaign declares the trial verdict untouchable. It is whether the conviction survives an independent examination of the law and evidence. In a capital case, that examination cannot be replaced by a crowd’s certainty. Dawn explains that the death sentence also requires High Court confirmation through a capital punishment reference, a separate safeguard that places the prosecution’s evidence under further scrutiny. According to its September 22 account, both that process and Hafeez’s appeal remained pending.
This is where the familiar suggestion of “safe passage” becomes uncomfortable. A family may understandably want a loved one out of danger, and protection after a lawful outcome may be essential. But quietly sending an accused person abroad cannot substitute for deciding whether the state proved its case. It would leave the conviction, the evidence and the years of delay without a judicial answer. Pakistan’s courts should hear the appeal promptly, record their reasons openly and provide appropriate protection to everyone involved in the proceedings. That is an editorial position; it does not prejudge the appeal.
The human cost extends beyond a case number. Hafeez’s father and brother have lived with this prosecution since 2013. Reports about his prison conditions and isolation raise serious questions that deserve examination under Pakistan’s own rules. The killing of Rashid Rehman remains a stark reminder that a lawyer’s ability to defend an unpopular client is a test of whether any accused Pakistani can receive a fair trial.
