ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dissolved the tribunal hearing the appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha against their conviction in a case related to their controversial social media posts.
The IHC has ordered to submit the case file to Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar for constitution of a new bench.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the order on Monday on an application filed by the appellants for an early hearing of their appeal and stay of their sentences.
During the proceedings, the appellants’ lawyer, Riasat Ali Azad, argued that despite the case being heard on February 19, no effective date was set for the hearing, prolonging his clients’ imprisonment.
The court was informed that a bench comprising Justice Muhammed Azam Khan had earlier heard cases involving the same appellants.
The order noted that for the sake of legal coherence, continuity and effective adjudication, this appeal should also be brought before this court.
Consequently, the court directed the office to submit the case files to the CJ for appropriate orders regarding the relocation of the case.
This development comes days after the earlier hearing on February 27, where the government requested that the appeal be transferred to Justice Khan’s court, arguing that a similar case had previously been heard there.
The Assistant Attorney General had submitted that it would be appropriate for the same bench to hear related cases.
However, the petitioner’s counsel opposed the move at that time, maintaining that no such case was pending in any other court. He noted that this appeal had been heard by Justice Muhammad Asif since its inception.
On January 24, the sessions judge of the Islamabad-West Criminal Court sentenced Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to a combined 17 years in prison and fined them Rs 36 million each.
The prosecution argued that the human rights lawyers’ social media posts incited ethnic hatred, undermined public trust in state institutions and falsely implicated the armed forces in terrorism and enforced disappearances.
On February 7, the couple challenged the high court’s order in the IHC. In their appeal, the petitioners argued that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements and proceeded to publish the judgment despite a transfer application pending before the IHC.
They argued that under the law, no judgment could be passed while a transfer petition remained pending. They further argued that the High Court undermined transparency by curtailing their right to defence.
