ISLAMABAD: Human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari and her spouse, Hadi Ali Chattha, on Thursday, urged the Supreme Court to hear their petition challenging the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision not to grant ad-interim relief to stay proceedings in their case before the additional sessions judge in Islamabad.
Mazari and Chattha, co-accused in the controversial tweet case, moved a joint appeal before the Supreme Court through advocate Faisal Siddiqi under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, with the prayer to set aside the IHC impugned order, as the High Court on December 1denied them ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause.
The couple had moved an application in the IHC, alleging that the trial court is not conducting the trial in a transparent way.
Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, on December 4, rejected an application filed by Mazari and her husband, co-accused Hadi Ali Chattha, challenging the appointment of a counsel by the state to represent them in the case registered by the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA).
The couple has informed the Supreme Court that they are being tried on criminal charges and that the proceedings are nearing conclusion, underscoring the urgency of the matter. Mazari and Chattha urged the apex court to fix the hearing today (December 5).
The application contended that the petitioners had filed a criminal revision before the IHC to question the trial proceedings in view of violations of due process as prescribed under CrPC, particularly the recording of evidence in the absence of the petitioners.
The plea argued that the petitioners have a clear prima facie case because the recording of evidence in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 (evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused) of the CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.
As the criminal trial is at its concluding stage, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners because the prosecution would not be prejudiced if the trial is delayed for two weeks, the application argued.
However, it added, the criminal revision application filed by the petitioners before the IHC would become infructuous due to the lack of a grant of ad-interim relief to stay the trial.
Thus, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss not only because the criminal revision application would become infructuous, but more importantly because of the gross violations of due process and principles of fair trial.
It is obvious and apparent that this unfair trial is leading to a criminal conviction of the petitioners, the application said.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025