Court removes reference under section 152 CrPC following FO distancing itself from judge’s comments
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, defender Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
A trial court in Islamabad overturned a section of its judgment in a case posted on social media against human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, which referred to certain countries as “terrorist states”, which emerged on Friday.
The two were convicted in Islamabad last week in a case involving alleged posts and reruns on X that investigators described as “anti-state.” The case was registered in August 2025 by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, with allegations that the content was aimed at undermining state institutions and aligning with proscribed organizations or individuals.
District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Afzal Majoka had observed that the accused had termed Pakistan a “Terrorist State” in their charges, a designation which, according to the order, officially applied only to four countries: Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria.
The Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson was questioned about this observation in his weekly press conference a day ago and was asked about Pakistan’s political stance on the matter, to which he replied: “We have seen the judgment. These are the views of the learned judge. Pakistan, of course, does not subscribe to this view. This type of designation of terrorist states does not exist either in the language of the UN or in international law.”
Subsequently, an order of the judge, dated January 27, emerged today saying that NCCIA Special Public Prosecutor Muhammad Usman Rana had filed an application on January 24 for “correction of errors… wherein, due to a typographical error, a judgment was issued…
written due to an administrative error that is not supported by any legal provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference, so some may be deleted because this sentence is vague and ambiguous.”
The order adds that the court reporter had mentioned in the written response that the phrase, along with others, was deleted during correction of the sentence but was wrongly included in the sentence at the time of final printing and “that this error on his part is in good faith.”
Citing Article 152 of the Criminal Procedure, the order said that administrative or arithmetic errors in judgments, decrees, orders or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected at any time by the court, either ex officio or at the request of any party.
Thus, the judge said: “In the present case there is no relevance of the above-mentioned judgment and it has no nexus with the issue of determination of the rights of the parties. This judgment is not supported by any legal provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in the above-mentioned esteemed summons, this application is accepted. Accordingly, the judgment is deleted.”
