Social media posts case against Imaan, Hadi: prosecution, defence nearly come to blows after heated courtroom exchange

ISLAMABAD: Proceedings in the controversial social media posts case against lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chatha took a tense turn on Tuesday as lawyers for the prosecution and defence nearly engaged in a physical altercation after a heated exchange during today’s hearing.

A detailed cross-examination of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency’s (NCCIA) witnesses exposed procedural gaps and triggered heated exchanges inside the courtroom.

The court began recording the statements of prosecution witnesses afresh last Tuesday in compliance with directives issued by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) the day prior, while hearing a petition filed by Mazari challenging the trial court’s November 19 order.

The hearing was conducted by Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka at the District and Sessions Court in Islamabad, with the couple appearing along with their legal teams.

During cross-examination, NCCIA Naib Qasid Afzal admitted that he did not have copies of his contract or service card and conceded that official letters received on October 16 and 20 did not mention the time of receipt.

Chatha pointed out discrepancies between the signatures on official documents, raising questions about the authenticity of record-keeping.

Another prosecution witness, Wasim, informed the court he had been a contract employee for the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for five years and had served with the NCCIA since its establishment.

However, he admitted that he was carrying only an FIA service card and not an NCCIA card and that the USB provided by the investigating officer was not sealed.

Wasim added that he had no written contract describing his job responsibilities and also stated he was unaware of any FIA circular barring the registration of first information reports (FIR) without prior notice.

The most pointed exchange came during the cross-examination of technical expert Anis, who claimed to have prepared over 5,200 forensic reports and stated that he was the sole technical expert at NCCIA.

He informed the court that his report was prepared using surface analysis techniques on seven screenshots and fourteen posts, based strictly on the scope letter issued by the investigating officer.

Anis conceded that neither the complaint nor the scope letter mentioned the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), Manzoor Pashteen or Ali Wazir, and confirmed that the post under scrutiny dated back to October 31, 2021, while the cited individuals were declared proscribed in 2024.

Despite this, he maintained that the accused were spreading a “state-hostile narrative” by referring to enforced disappearances — a position strongly contested by the defence.

Chatha questioned whether references to enforced disappearances by the Supreme Court, high courts, cabinet members, or even former intelligence chiefs would also be considered anti-state. The witness declined to comment, stating such matters were outside his mandate and could only be assessed if presented to him as a case.

Tempers flared when sharp remarks were exchanged between the prosecution and defence, resulting in an attempt at physical confrontation. Police intervened to restore order.

Judge Majoka directed the prosecution to apologise for using inappropriate language and reminded both sides that objections must be addressed through the court.

After a brief recess, further cross-examination revealed that dozens of other social media accounts had retweeted the same content, yet no investigation was conducted against them. The witness acknowledged that the scope of inquiry was limited to the accused.

The court adjourned further proceedings till January 5, when cross-examination of the technical expert will resume.

The controversy at the centre of the case stems from a complaint filed on August 12, 2025, by the assistant director (investigating officer) at the NCCIA Islamabad, before the Cybercrime Reporting Centre, FIA, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (Peca).

The complaint accused Mazari of disseminating and “propagating narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations,” while her husband was implicated for reposting some of her posts.

Consequently, an inquiry was initiated, and following its conclusion on August 22, 2025, a first information report was registered against the two, alleging commission of offences under sections 9, 10, 11 and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA).

They were indicted in the case on October 30.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court (SC) stayed trial proceedings against the couple until their pending appeals were decided by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The court issued the directives as a three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and comprising Justice Salahuddin Panwhar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, heard Imaan’s appeal seeking to set aside the IHC’s Dec 1 order refusing to grant interim relief by staying the trial in the case.