Controversial tweet case: Trial of Imaan, husband not proceeding transparently, IHC told

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court was informed that the trial court is not conducting a transparent trial of advocates Imaan Mazari and her spouse, Hadi Ali Chattha, in the controversial tweet case.

A single judge bench of Justice Azam Khan on Monday heard a petition moved by Imaan and Hadi, challenging the Trial Court's order in the controversial tweet case.

Advocate Ali Azad, appointed by the State, represented both lawyers. The bench questioned whether all the lawyers present in the court were for this particular case, to which Ali Azad replied affirmatively, stating, “This is a very important case.”

Members of the Islamabad Bar Council, Raja Aleem Abbasi, Zafar Khokhar, and a large number of bar officials and lawyers were present.

Advocate Ali Azad raised concerns that the trial was not proceeding transparently. He said that if there are multiple accused, the trial can continue if one has an exemption.

Ali Azad stressed, “A fair trial is a constitutional right. Witness statements should be recorded in my presence. The trial court is not conducting a transparent trial. This is one of many cases pending before this court. These are bar members and professional lawyers.”

When the court asked about proceedings on November 24, Hadi Ali Chattha stated that they had filed a request for witness statements to be recorded in their presence, which was rejected.

Justice Azam asked about the cross-examination of the five witnesses. Ali Azad said it had been conducted outside the courtroom, which violates the basic requirements of a fair trial.

Advocate Zafar Khokhar explained that the trial can continue under a permanent exemption, but not under a one-day exemption, as the pleader is assigned and must be present. Justice Azam asked lawyers to cite the law supporting the one-day exemption limitation.

The lawyers requested the court to halt the trial court proceedings. Justice Azam remarked, “We will review this and issue an order accordingly.”

The court adjourned the case for further hearing.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025