- Hadi Ali Chattha contests appointment of state counsel.
- Imaan Mazari requests time to appoint lawyer.
- Judge Afzal Majoka adjourns hearing until November 8.
ISLAMABAD: A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Thursday withdrew non-bailable arrest warrants issued a day earlier for lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, in the controversial tweet case.
Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka had issued the arrest warrants for the two after they failed to appear before the court for a hearing on Wednesday.
However, he withdrew the warrants after Mazari and Chattha appeared before the court for today’s hearing.
Advocate Samiullah Wazir submitted the power of attorney on behalf of Chattha, while Mazari sought time to appoint a lawyer.
At this, the court instructed Mazari to submit her lawyer’s power of attorney by Saturday.
During the hearing, Mazari stated that their “rights were being violated” with the pace at which the case against them was proceeding.
“We are being punished for speaking the truth; the court should read out the charge to us,” she said.
In his response, Judge Majoka said that the court had already read out the charge three times in the presence of the accused’s lawyers.
Meanwhile, Chattha asked for the dismissal of the state counsel assigned to his case, saying that his attorney had arrived and was prepared to take up his case.
However, Judge Majoka denied having appointed the state counsel, saying that the same committee that appointed the counsel can remove him.
He then instructed Chattha to present arguments regarding the state counsel on Saturday, where a verdict will be given on the same.
Judge Majoka then adjourned the hearing of the case until November 8.
The case against Mazari and Chattha stems from a first information report (FIR), registered by the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency, accusing the couple of inciting divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts.
The FIR, registered against the couple, invoked Sections 9, 10, 11, and 26 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016.
