NCCIA objects to maintainability of pleas, says sentence suspension applications were filed prematurely
Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday reserved its decision on the maintainability of applications seeking the suspension of sentences awarded to lawyer Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posts case.
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.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the applications seeking suspension of the sentences.
Read: SC adjourns Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha sentence suspension plea amid IHC proceedings
At the outset of the hearing, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) raised objections to the maintainability of the applications as the agency counsel 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 ours, our application will become ineffective,” the counsel submitted.
Counsel for Mazari and Chattha, Faisal Siddiqui, told the court that he was ready to present arguments on the miscellaneous application.
“They are saying that if the applications for suspension of sentence are dismissed, then both matters should be heard together,” he argued.
Addressing the defence counsel, Justice Khan remarked that he should prepare first, adding that it would be better for the protection of his rights.
In response, Faisal Siddiqui said he waived his rights and was ready to present his arguments.
The court observed 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 reposts on X, described by authorities as “anti-state”. The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, alleging the content was intended to incite divisions and portray state institutions negatively.
The social media posts case reached the IHC after the trial court’s November 19 proceedings, during which testimonies of all prosecution witnesses were recorded. The two lawyers had challenged procedural irregularities, including recording evidence in their absence and the appointment of state-appointed counsel without their consent, prompting the IHC’s intervention.
Legal bodies, including the Islamabad Bar Association, have criticised aspects of the proceedings, arguing that the defendants’ right to a fair defence has been undermined.
Their plea to transfer the case was heard by the high court, which declined 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 Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha sentence suspension pleas until June 4
Meanwhile, multiple other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this time. One of the newly surfaced FIRs, registered at Kohsar Police Station on July 26, 2025, was filed 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 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.
