ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dissolved the court hearing appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her wife Hadi Ali Chattha against their conviction in a case related to their controversial social media posts.
The IHC ordered the filing of the case before Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar for constitution of a new bench.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the order on Monday following an application filed by the appellants seeking an early hearing of their appeals and suspension of their sentences.
During the proceedings, the appellants’ lawyer, Riasat Ali Azad, argued that although the case was heard on February 19, no effective date had been set for the hearing, thereby prolonging his clients’ incarceration.
The court was informed that a bench comprising Justice Muhammed Azam Khan had previously heard proceedings involving the same appellants.
The order noted that in the interest of consistency, continuity and effectiveness of the judgment, the present appeal should also be brought before this court.
Therefore, the court ordered the office to file the case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders regarding reassignment of the case.
The development comes days after the previous hearing on February 27, when the government requested that the appeal be transferred to Justice Khan’s court, arguing that a similar case had already been heard there.
The Deputy Attorney General had argued that it would be appropriate for the same panel to hear related cases.
However, the petitioner’s lawyer then objected to the move, saying no such case was pending in any other court. He noted that the present appeal had been heard by Justice Muhammad Asif since its inception.
On January 24, the session judge of the Islamabad West Criminal Court sentenced Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to a cumulative term of 17 years’ imprisonment and fines of Rs 36 million each.
The prosecution alleged that the human rights lawyers’ social media posts incited ethnic hatred, undermined public trust in state institutions, and falsely implicated the armed forces in terrorism and enforced disappearances.
On February 7, the couple challenged the trial court’s order before the IHC. In their appeal, the petitioners argued that the trial court failed to fulfill mandatory legal requirements and proceeded to announce the verdict despite a transfer request pending before the IHC.
They argued that under the law no judgment could be entered while a transfer application remained pending. They further argued that the trial court violated transparency by restricting their right to defense.
