Prominent lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday, filing an application seeking the transfer of their controversial tweets case from the court of Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka. The couple expressed a clear lack of confidence in the judge, alleging that the proceedings under his supervision fail to uphold the required standards of transparency.
In their plea, Mazari and Chattha asserted that the fundamental principles of a fair trial were not being met. They urged the IHC to shift the case to another court to ensure impartiality and justice. The case itself stems from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency, accusing the couple of posting social media content that allegedly incited divisions on linguistic grounds.
The FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016, specifically Sections 9, 10, 11, and 26, which pertain to glorification of offences, hate speech, incitement, and related cybercrimes.
During the hearing on Friday at the district and sessions court in Islamabad, tensions rose when Imaan Mazari made a bold statement. Standing before Judge Majoka, she declared:
“Hand me seven years in prison, I am ready for it.”
The remark, charged with frustration and defiance, was met with silence from the judge.
Advocate Chattha, who is also an accused in the case, requested the court to allow both defendants to record their statements and present witnesses under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—a provision that empowers the court to directly examine an accused person. He argued that if the court preferred, it could summon the witnesses or facilitate virtual testimony.
Highlighting a key concern, Chattha noted that the Section 342 responses currently on the record had been submitted by the state counsel, not the accused themselves.
“The statement under 342 is actually the statement of the accused,” he emphasized, questioning the effectiveness and legitimacy of the current representation.
He further stated:
“We have expressed no confidence in state counsel Taimur Janjua.”
The prosecutor countered that no such objection had been raised during the previous hearing, suggesting that the defence was shifting its stance.
When Chattha insisted that the court first address their petition regarding Section 342 before proceeding with arguments, Judge Majoka responded,
“I will decide on your petition; you let the prosecution present arguments.”
Despite the friction, the state counsel eventually submitted his final arguments in writing. However, the courtroom atmosphere grew tense, and Judge Majoka exited the courtroom as lawyers began sloganeering, indicating growing unrest among members of the legal community present during the proceedings.
Following the abrupt end of the session, the case was adjourned until Monday, December 8.
The ongoing case has drawn attention across legal and political circles, reflecting broader debates around freedom of expression, state oversight of online speech, and the use of the cybercrime legal framework in Pakistan. The couple’s move to seek a transfer of court signals growing dissatisfaction with the conduct of the trial and raises questions about procedural fairness.
As the next hearing approaches, all eyes remain on the Islamabad High Court’s decision regarding the transfer request—one that could significantly impact the direction and credibility of the proceedings.
