A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Saturday completed the examination of prosecution witnesses in the controversial social media case against lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha.
The case against Imaan and Hadi was brought over allegations of attempts to incite divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts and creating the impression that the military was involved in terrorism within the country.
during the prior hearingImaan and Chattha had fallen out following the apparent disappearance of the court-appointed lawyer representing them in the case and the appointment of a new lawyer.
Two days earlier, the court-appointed attorney had refused cross-examine prosecution witnesses, saying he could not “ask dictated questions.”
Today’s hearing, held amid tense exchanges between police officers and lawyers, resumed and the state counsel continued the process of cross-examination of witnesses, where five witnesses appeared before the presiding judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majoka.
As proceedings began, Attorney Chatha opened his counterarguments by informing the court that he had forgotten his case file after learning that arguments were beginning without his presence. He said he had subsequently recovered the file and added that the prosecution had failed to address several points he had previously raised.
He clarified that he never maintained that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) was the “appropriate forum” in the matter. Instead, he said, his argument was that two official approvals were needed before any investigation could begin under the law.
Justice Majoka noted that if there was ambiguity regarding the authority of the official in question, the 2025 amendment could be examined.
“What power was used when issuing the standard order?” the judge asked, noting that the standard order “does not conform to the 2018 rules.”
Lawyer Mazari argued that similar cases had been registered against journalists earlier, following which the Islamabad High Court issued directions. Chattha further maintained that the prosecution had not specified the time of the alleged posts, adding that some screenshots were from 2021, while his current account was created in January 2025.
When showing his account to the judge, he maintained that “no tweet can be used against me” from a period prior to the creation of the account.
He added that the four charges leveled against him and Imaan referred to 2021, even though their checking account did not exist at the time. Citing various court rulings, he requested his acquittal. After hearing their arguments, Judge Majoka reserved his decision and then announced that the application for acquittal had been rejected.
After the rejection, the court moved to the evidence stage and called prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. At that time, Attorney Mazari informed the court that her attorney was not present. When the judge ordered her to call her lawyer, Mazari responded that the lawyer in question did not represent her.
This led to a bitter exchange between Mazari, lawyer Chatha and the state’s lawyer.
The State’s attorney complained that he was being subjected to verbal hostility.
Judge Majoka warned the defendants not to disrupt the proceedings and told them he would remove them from the courtroom if necessary. He called the ladies’ police and brought the state prosecutor to the stand to proceed with the cross-examination.
However, tensions increased further when Mazari told the judge: “This is a military court” and subsequently accused the state’s lawyer of being a “salesman.”
The judge ordered both defendants removed from the courtroom and escorted outside by police officers. Later, lawyers and police personnel exchanged harsh words in the courtroom and the atmosphere remained volatile.
Work resumed after a brief pause. Lawyer Mazari filed an application for acquittal and requested his immediate hearing, but the judge rejected the application and issued notices.
Chattha told the court that he had repeatedly tried to contact his lawyer but was unable to contact the court. The judge ordered the State’s attorney to proceed with the cross-examination in the absence of the defense attorney.
The State Counsel then cross-examined the witnesses Aneesur Rehman, Shahroz, Waseem and Imran Haider. The fifth and final witness, Afzal, arrived late, prompting the judge to warn that he would close the evidence stage if the witness did not appear.
The prosecution assured the court that the witness was on his way and once Afzal arrived his testimony was recorded, completing the prosecution’s evidence.
At the conclusion of the interrogation process, the judge ordered the prosecution to prepare and present to the accused the questionnaire provided for in Article 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“The questionnaire is being given to you, you must present your response,” the judge said, adding that if the defendants did not present their answers, the prosecutor would be responsible for doing so.
The court ordered the prosecution to submit the completed questionnaire by December 4 and adjourned the hearing to the same date.
