Case against Imaan, husband: court adjourns hearing till 8th

ISLAMABAD: A local court hearing a controversial tweet case against human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari and her spouse, Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, on Friday adjourned the hearing until Monday after the state counsel submitted its final arguments.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, while hearing the case registered against the couple under Sections 9, 10, 11, and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) over alleged anti-state remarks posted on social media, heard the arguments of the defence counsel on miscellaneous applications.

During the hearing, arguments began on the defence application regarding the Section 342 statements and the list of witnesses.

Hadi Ali Chattha, while arguing before the court, told the court that the Section 342 statement is essentially the accused’s own statement. He argued that after cross-examination of witnesses, the state counsel was handed a questionnaire, which he said he did not rely upon.

According to Chattha, when the defence informed the court that they had not received the questionnaire, the court later provided a questionnaire containing 33 questions at 10 a.m.

He added that five hearings were held on December 3, and three of their applications were dismissed.

“We told the court that we cannot answer the questions within four hours and need more time,” Chattha said.

The judge, however, observed, “You did not request any further time during the previous hearing.”

Chattha argued that they were not provided the written order when requested. He added that they came to know the state counsel had submitted the 342 response on their behalf — a response which, he stressed, does not represent the accused.

Chattha further reminded the court that the defence had already expressed no-confidence in state counsel TaimurJanjua and had submitted an application to this effect.

“We want to submit our own 342 statement today [Friday],” he said, adding that they also had a list of defence witnesses, including journalist Ahmed Noorani’s mother, Journalist Mudassar Naro’s mother, Sardar Akhtar Mengal, Poet Ahmed Farhad, Arifa Noor and others.

He stated that the court may issue the summons to these witnesses or allow them to record their statements online. “We request that our application be accepted,” Chattha pleaded.

Advocate Raja Aleem Abbasi argued that the court should permit the accused to record their own section 342 statements.

“I have never seen a case where the accused were unaware that a 342 statement had been submitted on their behalf by the state counsel,” he remarked.

Advocate Naeem Gujar said that the case was being watched internationally and urged the court to ensure justice. “We seek no favour — only the rule of law,” he said.

Advocate Riyasat Ali Azad stressed that a fair trialwas the right of every accused.

“There is no catastrophe in following due process. Article 10 of the Constitution is clear on this.”

He added that even if it takes a week or ten days, the priority must be the accused’s confidence in the trial process.

The prosecution argued that the defence had not raised any issue regarding Section 342in the previous hearing. Chattha insisted that the court first decide the application concerning the 342 statement after the prosecution started arguments on the main case.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025