Controversial tweet case: SC stays trial court proceedings against Imaan Mazari, husband
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court granted a stay to Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in the controversial tweet case and directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide their petition challenging an order handed down by the District and Sessions Court, Islamabad.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Hashim Kakar, and comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, on Thursday heard an appeal of the couple to halt their trial. During the proceedings, the Norwegian ambassador was also present in the courtroom.
The court order stayed the trial in the Additional District and Sessions Judge court, which was scheduled to resume the case hearing from 15th December.
The controversy stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the assistant director (investigating officer) at the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), Islamabad, before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA).
The complaint accused Imaan of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations,” while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.
The SC bench expected that the High Court will hear both sides fully and issue a prompt ruling. The stay order was issued with the mutual consent of both parties. The apex court said that the trial will remain suspended until the IHC delivers its verdict.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqi, representing the petitioners, argued that a case had been registered against his clients under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). He informed that cross-examination of four witnesses had taken place in the absence of his clients.
Justice Ibrahim asked for the order sheet as proof that the cross-examinations had been conducted in the absence of the defendants. Siddiqi responded that they had protested in court. Justice Panhwar stated, “So you are saying you were present in the courtroom but left in protest?” Siddiqi confirmed this. Justice Hashim Kakar added: “You left the courtroom as a form of protest.”
Siddiqi reiterated that, in Justice Kakar’s view, evidence could not be recorded in the absence of the accused. Justice Kakar emphasised that the defence team had its own legal strategy and that no one should be punished without a transparent trial.
He added that judges must remain free from pressure and provide both parties a full opportunity to present their case.
Justice Kakar said: “Both accused are lawyers and may conduct cross-examination themselves.”
He further said that neither the judge nor the high court should be disrespected, and that a verdict by the trial court before proper procedures could render a High Court revision ineffective.
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Rana Asad objected to the admissibility of the petition. Justice Kakar told the AAG, “that executing Imaan Mazari will neither benefit you nor will the sky fall.”
“The constitution guarantees a fair trial,” he added.
During the proceeding, the judges and lawyers shared a moment of humour during the hearing when Justice Hashim Kakar remarked: “We are writing the order, you have no objections, correct?” Rana Asad replied: “Objections were raised regarding the admissibility of the petition, but fine, let’s proceed”.
Faisal Siddiqui thanked the AAG, saying: “We can only come to you in this city.” Justice Kakar stated: “Now you’ve started discussing politics.” Upon that, laughter echoed through the courtroom.
The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) filed a case against Imaan and Chatha; both are accused of sharing “anti-state” remarks on the social media platform X. The couple was formally charged on October 30. Judge Majoka had indicted both individuals in the case, with each denying the charges.
The complaint accused Mazari of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations,” while her husband was implicated for re-posting certain posts made by her.
According to the appeal, the complainants provided no specific allegations, and they selectively cited a few posts made by the petitioners on the social media platform X, dating back to 2021.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025