By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday halted trial proceedings against the human rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in a case involving controversial social media posts, pending the outcome of their appeals in the Islamabad High Court.
The ruling came as a three-judge bench, led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and including Justices Salahuddin Panwhar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, considered Mazari-Hazir’s appeal against a Dec. 1 decision by the high court that denied interim relief by refusing to stay the lower court trial.
Mazari-Hazir and Chattha, who face charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act of 2016, had sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court to challenge the high court’s stance. They have also lodged a criminal revision petition in the high court, contesting the trial on grounds of procedural violations under the Criminal Procedure Code, including the recording of evidence without their presence.
In issuing the stay, Justice Kakar said in the court’s order that “we expect the IHC to decide on the fate of the petition after providing a full opportunity of hearing to both parties.” The directive paused proceedings set to resume on Dec. 15 before Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka. Senior counsel Faisal Siddiqi represented the couple, while Additional Attorney General Rana Asadur Rehman argued against the appeal’s maintainability.
Justice Kakar noted during arguments that litigants often craft their own legal strategies, but emphasised that the court would not undermine the trial judge’s authority. The hearing drew attention beyond the courtroom when Per Albert Ilsas, the Norwegian ambassador to Pakistan, attended as an observer, sparking debate on social media. Responding to a journalist who called it a “breach of diplomatic norms,” Mazari-Hazir said, “Who is going to explain to this genius that diplomats routinely observe court proceedings, that is not equivalent to them taking a position on any case. This is a standard practice but it’s very clear where the pressure is coming from to malign the ambassador.”
The case originated from an Aug. 12 complaint filed by an assistant director at the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency with the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cybercrime Reporting Center. It accused Mazari-Hazir of spreading narratives aligned with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations, and implicated Chattha for reposting some of her content. The couple was charged under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 26 of the electronic crimes law and indicted on Oct. 30. The first information report claims their posts sought to incite divisions along linguistic lines.
Last month, a district court issued non-bailable arrest warrants for their failure to appear, though the orders were later withdrawn. On Dec. 5, they petitioned the high court to transfer the case from Judge Majoka, citing a lack of transparency in the proceedings. In Thursday’s arguments, Siddiqi told the bench that his clients were charged under the electronic crimes act. “Four witnesses were cross-examined without the presence of the accused in the courtroom,” he said.
Justice Ibrahim asked for the order sheet confirming the cross-examination occurred in their absence. Siddiqi replied, “We protested in the courtroom,” leading Justice Panhwar to clarify, “You mean you were in the courtroom [and] left in protest.” “Yes, that’s exactly how it is,” Siddiqi said, invoking a prior ruling by Justice Kakar that prohibits producing witnesses without the accused present.
Justice Kakar remarked, “No one can be punished without a transparent trial, nor should they be.” “The judge should also be free from pressure and give a full opportunity to both parties. Both the accused are lawyers themselves, and they can cross-examine [witnesses].” The justice warned that a trial court verdict could nullify the high court revision. Addressing Rehman’s objection to the plea’s admissibility, Justice Kakar said, “You will neither get anything by hanging [Imaan] Mazari.” The bench then disposed of the matter.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
