The late Ottoman Empire was legally pluralistic. The complementary fora from which Ottomans could seek justice comprised new civil and criminal courts alongside shari’a courts; greater legal standardization and regulation through codices; and recourse to the constitution after 1908. Still, many subjects looked to the sovereign as final arbiter of justice and the longstanding practice of petitioning the sultan remained extremely popular. This paper examines the context and content of a selection of petitions from a cache in the Ottoman archives written by the Shi’i Nizari Ismailis of Greater Syria between 1909 and 1911. The petitions are the only extant Ismaili correspondence with the state at a time when their relationship had changed for the worse. To be sure, the Ismailis did face some religious persecution throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule – narratives of which have made sectarianism and victimisation commonplace in Ismaili literature. This change, however, was largely one of imperial politics precipitated by the Ismailis’ recent recognition of a British Empire loyalist residing in Bombay, the Aga Khan III, as their imam. Their association with the Aga Khan led officials to suspect collusion with a foreign power, something subsequent trials would affirm. Seen to be a fifth column, the Ismailis suffered at the hands of rapacious provincial officials who extorted property and valuables from them and imprisoned their notables. Already having been failed by the courts, the Ismailis responded by petitioning the sultan. Ministers in Istanbul considered the petitions, and took some action, but ultimately the promises of the constitution were left wanting. This paper has several implications for the study of state-society relations within the framework of late Ottoman law and legality. Broadly, it highlights the continued importance of the petition as an official means to redress injustice. It also questions the independence of the Ottoman Ministry of Justice in light of other ministries’ policies, especially those related to foreign meddling. More specifically, it provides the only first-hand accounts of Ismaili articulations of justice and rights in the second constitutional era. By looking at these petitions in local and imperial contexts, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the changing dynamics between the Ottoman state and the Ismailis, suggesting it was not sect that cleaved relations but imperial politics writ large.