ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday issued notices to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on appeals of lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial tweets case.
A single bench of Justice Muhammad Asif heard a petition filed by the couple and issued notices to the respondents to submit a response in this matter.
Faisal Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of Imaan, informed that the trial court gave the verdict even though a petition, seeking transfer of the case, was sub judice. He further said that the statements by two witnesses were recorded in the absence of the accused.
He maintained that nobody can stop the court from giving a sentence, but at least give the accused the right to a fair trial.
The bench, after hearing Siddiqui’s arguments, issued notices to the NCCIA and deferred the case.
Imaan Mazari and her husband had challenged their conviction in the controversial social media posts case by filing separate criminal appeals.
The appeals have sought that the trial court’s January24 verdict, which sentenced the couple to jail on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), be declared null and void.
In their appeals, Mazari and Chattha contended that the impugned judgement was passed in blatant violation of settled legal principles and mandatory procedural requirements. They argued that the trial court proceeded to pronounce the verdict even though an application seeking transfer of the case was pending adjudication before the IHC, rendering the decision “unlawful and without jurisdiction.”
According to the appeals, once a transfer application was filed and pending before a superior court, the trial court was barred from proceeding further in the matter.
The appellants maintained that any judgment delivered under such circumstances was void ab initio and liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
The appeals further assailed the conduct of the trial, alleging that the right of defence was effectively taken away under the guise of ensuring transparency.
They argued that the trial court curtailed the defense’s opportunity to effectively cross-examine witnesses and present its case. They further questioned the legality of the proceedings conducted through video link from jail.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments