In Supreme Court hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarks that the ‘system should be fully exposed’
Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday fixed the suspension of sentence applications of lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha for hearing on September 8.
Imaan, a rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, an advocate, were in January 2026 handed a combined 17-year sentence on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that the prosecution argued amounted to an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws. Imaan and Chattha had filed applications for suspension of their sentences in January.
The Registrar’s Office issued a cause list for the case that showed Justice Muhammad Azam Khan would hear the case.
The appeals for suspension of sentences of Imaan and Chattha were also heard in the Supreme Court by a two-member bench headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.
During the hearing, Justice Afghan remarked that the “system should be fully exposed”.
“A case may disappear from the system; we will not disappear, we are present here, as long as life permits,” he said.
Read: IHC declares Imaan, Chattha’s sentence suspension pleas maintainable
Justice Afghan asked about “how long the vacations are in the Islamabad High Court?” to which the additional attorney general responded that the IHC would commence its official work from September 6 onwards.
The additional attorney general argued that the appeals for suspension of sentences were not admissible, to which Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim asked where it was written in the law.
Advocate Faisal Siddiqui told the court that the Supreme Court had ordered a decision on the appeals for suspension of sentence within two weeks, adding that its order was not implemented.
The additional attorney general said that the IHC had its own system, and cases were scheduled accordingly.
Read More: SC seeks replies on Imaan sentence plea
Siddiqui said that a case had suddenly been scheduled for Sept 8 in the IHC, adding that whenever the Supreme Court “starts making a decision, a case is scheduled in the High Court”.
Justice Afghan responded to Siddiqui that the “system should be fully exposed”, to which the latter said that “the cause list has not come yet, and there is the possibility that the case might disappear from the system”.
Justice Ibrahim remarked that if asked to decide on the suspension of the sentence, the court could also dismiss the application.
The court adjourned the further hearing of the case until Sept 17.
Justice Afghan remarked that in the next hearing, “we will either be deciding on the next hearing or the applicant will have withdrawn the case”.
Case background
The couple was arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside the Serena Hotel while travelling to the district courts, and later sent to 14 days’ judicial remand by an anti-terrorism court.
A district and sessions court later sentenced both to a combined 17 years’ rigorous imprisonment each: five years under PECA Section 9 (plus a Rs5 million fine), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs30 million), and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs1 million), with additional jail time in case of non-payment of fines. The judge also acquitted them of the PECA hate-speech charge under Section 11, saying prosecution witnesses did not support that allegation.
During proceedings conducted via video link, Imaan alleged mistreatment in custody and announced a boycott of the hearing. The judgment noted the pair were already in custody in another case and said they would remain in jail to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in detention under Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In March, Imaan approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of her sentence, moving the apex court after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the petition stated that despite her counsel’s request to suspend the trial court’s judgment, the IHC only issued notices on the suspension application on February 19, and that it did not suspend the petitioner’s sentence.
Further, the petition argued that the trial court’s order was completely illegal and clearly mala fide, as it violated due process requirements under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, breaching mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367, and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
In June, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) challenged the SC’s earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple’s suspension applications within a specified timeframe. In its petition, the NCCIA contended that the SC cannot interfere in matters that are already pending before a High Court.
The application stated that in its May 12 order, the apex court had issued certain directions to the high court, whereas the authority to decide an application for suspension of sentence rested with the concerned high court, which was required to hear all parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.
On July 17, the IHC fixed July 24 as the date for hearing applications seeking the suspension of sentences. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also scheduled the hearing on sentence suspension applications for July 21, ahead of the IHC proceedings.
On July 21, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing after hearing arguments over whether parallel proceedings before the IHC should continue.
Siddiqi argued that the matter had been listed before the high court because proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Mazhar rejected the suggestion that the Supreme Court should delay its proceedings because of the high court case, observing, “We cannot sit in the Supreme Court and regulate proceedings before the High Court.”
On July 24, the IHC reserved its decision on the maintainability of applications seeking the suspension of sentences. The court observed that it would first decide the prosecution’s objection regarding the maintainability of the applications before proceeding further.
