- Three-member SC bench hears Mazari’s plea against IHC verdict.
- Witnesses cross-examined without presence of accused, says lawyer.
- No one can be punished without a transparent trial: Justice Kakar
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued directives to halt the trial of lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial tweets case.
A three-member SC bench comprising Justice Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard and accepted Mazari’s plea against the Islamabad High Court verdict which had dismissed the lawyer’s plea seeking to stop the trial in the additional sessions judge’s court.
The court, in its verdict, said that the trial in the said case should be halted till the decision of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
“The IHC should decide [the case] after hearing all the parties. It is expected that IHC will decide soon after hearing the parties in full,” said the SC.
Mazari and Chattha were booked in a case registered by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 26 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016 and were subsequently indicted on October 30.
The first information report (FIR) alleges that the couple attempted to incite divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts.
Last month, a district and sessions court issued non-bailalble arrest warrants for the duo over failure to appear at the hearing; however, the orders were withdrawn later.
Meanwhile, on December 5, Mazari and Chattha filed an application in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), expressing distrust in Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka and seeking transfer of the controversial tweets case to another court.
The plea argued that transparency requirements were not being met in the trial, therefore, the case should be transferred to another court.
During the hearing today, counsel for the accused, Faisal Siddiqui said that his clients face a case registered unther the Peca Act.
“Four witnesses were cross-examined without the presence of the accused in the courtroom,” he said.
To this, Justice Ibrhaim asked the lawyer to show the order sheet that proves that the cross-examination was carried out in the absence of the accused.
“We protested in the courtroom,” responded Siddiqui, prompting Justice Panhwar to ask, “You mean you were in the courtroom [and] left in protest”.
“Yes, that’s exactly how it is,” the counsel replied, while highlighting that there’s a verdict of Justice Kakar which says that witnesses cannot be produced in the absence of the accused.
“No one can be punished without a transparent trial, nor should they be,” remarked Justice Kakar.
“The judge should also be free from pressure and give a full opportunity to both parties. Both the accused are lawyers themselves, and they can cross-examine [witnesses],” the judge added.
Justice Kakar further pointed out that if the trial court announces its decision, then the revision in the IHC will be rendered ineffective.
Responding to Additional Attorney General Rana Asad’s objection concerning the admissibility of Mazari’s plea, Justice Kakar said: “You will neither get anything by hanging [Imaan] Mazari”.
The court then disposed of the case.
