ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday issued notices to the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) on appeals filed by Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, against their conviction in the controversial tweets case.
Justice Muhammad Asif, who heard the appeals, also issued notices on the couple’s applications seeking suspension of their sentence and called for a response from the agency.
The IHC then adjourned further proceedings, observing that a date for the next hearing would be fixed.
On January 24, Imaan and Hadi were handed a total of 17 years in jail on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) by a sessions court in Islamabad, sparking outrage among rights groups, opposition parties, and other segments of society.
The lawyer duo was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment under Peca’s Section 10 (cyberterrorism), five years’ jail under Section 9 (glorification of an offence) and two years in prison under Section 26-A (false and fake information).
All sentences will run concurrently.
Appearing on behalf of the appellants, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui, along with Zainab Janjua and other members of the defence team, contended that the trial court announced its verdict while a transfer application was still pending before the IHC.
Siddiqui argued that two prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of the accused and questioned the manner in which the trial judge subsequently expunged a paragraph from the judgment.
“Punishment may be awarded ten times over, but a fair trial must first be conducted,” Siddiqui contended, stressing that due process had been compromised.
Justice Asif remarked that notices were being issued and directed that the paper books be prepared.
Siddiqui requested an early date for the hearing of the suspension of sentence applications, pointing that he travelled from Karachi to appear before the court, and sought a Monday or Tuesday date.
The judge responded that an appropriate date would be fixed.
The IHC subsequently issued notices to the NCCIA and sought the agency’s reply before adjourning the matter.
On February 7, the couple had challenged the trial court’s order convicting them. In their appeals, the two contended that the impugned judgment was passed in blatant violation of settled legal principles and mandatory procedural requirements.
They argued that the trial court proceeded to pronounce the verdict despite the fact that an application seeking transfer of the case was pending adjudication before the IHC, rendering the decision “unlawful and without jurisdiction”.
