The court rejects the various arguments of the prosecution contesting the maintenance of the requests
Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday said petitions filed by lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha seeking suspension of their sentences were upheld in the controversial social media posts case.
Imaan, a rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, a lawyer, were sentenced in January 2026 to a combined 17 years in prison on multiple charges related to controversial social media posts that the prosecution said amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.
The court had reserved its decision on the prosecution’s various motions a day earlier after hearing arguments from both sides.
The court today denied the prosecution’s various motions challenging the continuation of the motions. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan delivered the reserved verdict.
The prosecution had objected that the petitions filed by Imaan and Chattha were premature. Following its decision, the court adjourned sine die the hearing on the requests for suspension of sentence.
Read: IHC reserves decision on Imaan Mazari’s maintainability and Chattha’s sentence suspension pleas
During Friday’s hearing, the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) raised objections to the maintainability of the requests, as the agency’s lawyer argued that the requests were filed prematurely.
“We request that our miscellaneous motion be heard first. If the other miscellaneous motion is heard before ours, our motion will become ineffective,” argued the lawyer.
Imaan and Chattha’s lawyer, Faisal Siddiqui, told the court that he was ready to present arguments on the various motions.
“They say that if the requests for suspension of sentence are rejected, then the two cases should be heard together,” he argued.
Addressing the defense lawyer, Justice Khan remarked that he should prepare himself first, adding that it would be better for the protection of his rights.
In response, Siddiqui said he was waiving his rights and was ready to present his arguments.
SC and IHC pleas
In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking suspension of his sentence, moving the apex court after the IHC failed to list his request for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the motion stated that despite his lawyer’s request to stay the trial court’s judgment, the IHC only issued notices on the stay request on February 19 and did not suspend the petitioner’s sentence.
Further, the petition claimed that the trial court’s order was totally illegal and clearly in bad faith, as it violated the requirements of due process under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, violating the mandatory provisions of Articles 233, 234, 353, 367 and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Read also: SC seeks answers on Imaan’s conviction plea
In June, the NCCIA also challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple’s stay applications within a specified time frame. In its petition, the NCCIA contended that the SC cannot interfere in cases already pending before a High Court.
The petition said that in its order dated May 12, the Supreme Court had given certain directions to the High Court, whereas the power to decide an application for suspension of sentence rests with the concerned High Court, which is required to hear all parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.
The NCCIA argued that in line with the principle of equal treatment, the SC should withdraw the said order. He contended that Imaan and Chattha were not entitled to any special concession or preferential treatment merely because they were members of the legal fraternity.
According to the petitioner, a party cannot approach the SC directly against the decision of a High Court to summon the opposite party for a hearing. The NCCIA requested the apex court to recall its order dated May 12, 2026, so that the matter can be referred to the competent High Court in accordance with law.
Social media cases
The case against Imaan and Hadi concerns allegedly controversial posts and reposts on X, described by authorities as “anti-state.” The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, alleging that the content was intended to incite divisions and portray state institutions in a negative manner.
The case about the social media posts came to the IHC after the trial court proceedings on November 19, during which the statements of all prosecution witnesses were recorded. The two lawyers had challenged procedural irregularities, including the recording of evidence in their absence and the appointment of court-appointed counsel without their consent, prompting the IHC to intervene.
Legal bodies, including the Islamabad Bar Association, criticized aspects of the proceedings, arguing that the defendants’ right to a fair defense had been compromised.
Their request to transfer the case was heard by the High Court, which refused to grant an immediate stay. The couple then approached the SC, which temporarily stayed the trial until the High Court completes its hearing.
Learn more: IHC adjourns suspension pleas of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha until June 4
Meanwhile, several other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this period. One of the newly surfaced FIRs, registered at Kohsar Police Station on July 26, 2025, was filed following the complaint of Police Commissioner Safdar Hussain in connection with a protest by the Balock Yakjehti Committee at the National Press Club under several sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The couple were arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside the Serena Hotel on their way to the district court and then sent to 14-day remand by an anti-terrorism court.
A district court and a sessions court subsequently sentenced them to a combined term of 17 years’ rigorous imprisonment each: five years under Section 9 of PECA (plus a fine of Rs 5 million), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs 30 million) and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs 1 million), with additional imprisonment for non-payment of the fines. The judge also acquitted them of PECA’s hate speech charge under Article 11, saying prosecution witnesses did not support the allegation.
During the proceedings conducted via video link, Imaan alleged ill-treatment in detention and announced a boycott of the hearing. The judgment noted that the two men were already in custody in another case and said they would remain in prison to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in custody under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
