NCCIA objects to upholding pleas, says sentencing applications were filed prematurely
Lawyer and human rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday reserved its decision on maintaining applications seeking suspension of sentences awarded to lawyer Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial social media posting case.
Imaan, a rights activist and lawyer, and Chattha, a lawyer, were sentenced in January 2026 to a total of 17 years in prison on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts that prosecutors argued amounted to an anti-government narrative under cybercrime laws.
Justice Muhammad Azam Khan heard the applications for stay of the sentences.
Read: SC stays Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha stay of sentence petition amid IHC case
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 processed first. If the other miscellaneous application is processed before ours, our application will become ineffective,” the lawyer said.
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 a stay of sentence are rejected, then both cases must be heard together,” he argued.
Addressing the defense counsel, Justice Khan noted that he should prepare himself 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 noted that it would first rule on the prosecution’s objection regarding the maintainability of the applications before proceeding.
Case on social media
The case against Imaan and Hadi allegedly relates to controversial posts and reposts on X, described by authorities as “anti-government”. The NCCIA registered the case under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, claiming that the content was intended to incite divisions and portray government institutions negatively.
The social media posting case reached the IHC after the trial on November 19, where the testimony of all prosecution witnesses was recorded. The two lawyers had challenged procedural irregularities, including the recording of 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 criticized aspects of the case, claiming that the defendants’ right to a fair defense has been undermined.
Their request 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 suspended the trial until the High Court concluded its hearing.
Read more: IHC adjourns Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha stay of sentence petitions till June 4
Meanwhile, several other FIRs surfaced against the couple during this time. One of the recently surfaced FIRs, registered at Kohsar Police Station on 26 July 2025, was filed on the complaint of Superintendent of Police Safdar Hussain in connection with a protest by the Balock Yakjehti Committee of the National Press Club under several sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The couple were arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside Serena Hotel while traveling to the district courts and later sent to 14-day custody 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 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 further imprisonment in case of non-payment. The judge also acquitted them of the PECA charge of hate speech under Section 11, saying the prosecution’s witnesses did not support that claim.
