NCCIA objects to maintainability of statements, says applications for suspension of sentence were filed prematurely
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, defender Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday reserved its decision on the maintainability of petitions seeking stay of sentences awarded to lawyer Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.
Imaan, an activist and rights lawyer, and Chattha, an advocate, received a combined 17-year sentence in January 2026 on multiple charges related to controversial social media posts that prosecutors said amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the applications seeking suspension of the sentences.
Read: SC defers declaration of suspension of sentence of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha amid IHC proceedings
At the beginning of the hearing, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) raised objections to the maintainability of the applications, as the agency’s lawyer argued that the applications had been filed prematurely.
“We request that our miscellaneous application be heard first. If the other miscellaneous application is heard before our application, our application will be ineffective,” the lawyer said.
Mazari and Chattha’s lawyer Faisal Siddiqui told the court he was ready to present arguments on the miscellaneous application.
“They are saying that if the suspended sentence requests are dismissed, then both issues should be dealt with together,” he argued.
Addressing the defense lawyer, Justice Khan remarked that he should prepare himself first, adding that it would be better for the protection of his rights.
In response, Faisal Siddiqui said he was waiving his rights and was ready to present his arguments.
The court noted that it would first decide the prosecution’s objection regarding the maintainability of the applications before proceeding further.
Social media case
The case against Imaan and Hadi relates to allegedly controversial posts and republishings on X, described by authorities as “anti-state”. The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, alleging that the content was aimed at inciting divisions and negatively portraying state institutions.
The social media posts case came to the IHC after the trial court proceedings on November 19, during which the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses were recorded. The two lawyers had questioned procedural irregularities, including recording of evidence in their absence and appointment of a state-appointed lawyer without their consent, prompting the IHC’s intervention.
Legal bodies, including the Islamabad Bar Association, have criticized aspects of the process, arguing that the accused’s right to a fair defense has been undermined.
His plea to transfer the case was heard by the high court, which refused to grant an immediate stay. The couple then approached the Supreme Court, which temporarily halted the trial until the high court completed its hearing.
Read more: IHC adjourns requests for suspension of sentences of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha until June 4
Meanwhile, many other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this time. One of the newly surfaced FIRs, registered at the Kohsar police station on July 26, 2025, was lodged on the complaint of Superintendent of Police Safdar Hussain in connection with a protest by the Balock Yakjehti Committee at the National Press Club under multiple sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The couple was arrested on January 23 near the underpass in front of Hotel Serena while on their way to the district courts, and later sent to 14-day judicial remand by an anti-terrorism court.
Subsequently, a district and sessions court sentenced both to a combined sentence of 17 years of rigorous imprisonment each: five years under Section 9 of PECA (plus a fine of Rs 5 million), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs 30 million) and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs 1 million), with additional jail term in case of non-payment of fines. The judge also acquitted them of PECA’s hate speech charge under Section 11, saying that prosecution witnesses did not support that charge.
