Imaan, Hadi appeal IHC verdict on social media posts case

ISLAMABAD: Lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse Hadi Ali Chattha challenged their recent convictions for controversial social media posts at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday, seeking to have a trial court verdict annulled. The January 24 ruling handed them combined sentences of 17 years in jail, divided into various charges under Sections 9, 10, and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

Their appeals cited several grounds for judicial misconduct, claiming that the judgment was rendered unlawfully without jurisdiction due to an unresolved transfer application pending before the IHC. They argued that once a case’s jurisdictional issue is raised, any subsequent trial conducted in another court should be invalidated under these circumstances alone.

The appellants highlighted instances of inadequate defense rights during their trials. They claimed the trial court restricted their right to cross-examine witnesses and present their cases effectively, breaches that violated fundamental fair-trial provisions enshrined in the Constitution. Moreover, they alleged that a state counsel accused them of being improperly warned about questions he intended to pose, potentially undermining the integrity of the proceedings.

The appellants also raised serious concerns over the legal basis for conducting hearings through video link from prison while the relevant judicial file was inaccessible to them during their custody. These issues allegedly compromised their right to proper defense procedures under Section 26-A of Peca.

In summary, they requested that the IHC declare the January 24 trial court verdict as unlawful and set aside any legal consequences. They also sought a temporary suspension of the conviction until their main appeals against the conviction are heard and decided by the superior court.

Last month, a sessions court had sentenced both lawyers to combined sentences totaling 17 years in jail under Sections 9 (glorification), 10 (cyberterrorism), and 26-A (false information). This decision sparked significant public outrage from various segments of society, including rights groups, opposition parties, and the general populace.