Lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, applied with the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday seeking the transfer of their ongoing trial to another court. The plea expresses distrust in the presiding judge, Muhammad Afzal Majoka, and argues that the proceedings lack required transparency.
The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA). It accuses the couple of inciting divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts. The FIR invokes multiple sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016.
Said goodbye to my brave daughter @ImaanZHazir & @AdvHadiali as they go to hear a sentence despite being innocent, passed by a kangaroo court thru a sham trial where all procedural laws violated. All this brazen injustice to satisfy an insatiable vengeful appetite.
— Shireen Mazari (@ShireenMazari1) December 5, 2025During the hearing in the district and sessions court earlier on Friday, Mazari made a defiant statement. She told the judge, “Hand me seven years in prison, I am ready [for it].” Judge Majoka did not respond to the remark.
Read: Islamabad Court Rejects Imaan Mazari’s Acquittal Plea in Social Media Case
Her husband and co-accused, Hadi Ali Chattha, requested the court to allow them to submit their statement. They also sought permission to present witnesses in their defence under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section pertains to the examination of the accused. Chattha argued that the statement currently on record was filed by the state-appointed counsel, Taimur Janjua, in whom they have expressed “no confidence.”
ایمان مزاری اور ہادی علی چٹھا کمرہ عدالت میں پیش۔۔۔پولیس کی بھاری نفری پہنچ گئی۔۔۔گرفتار کرنے کی تیاریاں۔۔@ImaanZHazir pic.twitter.com/dMn8kyV47I
— Sadaqat Saqi (@sadaqatsaqi05) December 5, 2025When Chattha pressed the court to first decide on their petition concerning Section 342, Judge Majoka instructed him to allow the prosecution to present its arguments first. He stated, “I will decide on your petition; you let the prosecution present arguments.”
Following the submission of the prosecution’s final written arguments, the judge exited the courtroom amid sloganeering by lawyers present. The case was subsequently adjourned until
