ISLAMABAD: Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Afzal Majoka on Thursday set aside the Judicial Magistrate’s order to close 27 YouTube channels.

Strongly reprimanding the NCCIA prosecutor, the judge observed that the agency was overstepping its authority and attempting to “defame judges.”

The court allowed the appeals of 11 YouTubers, including Matiullah Jan, Asad Toor, and Abdul Qadir, and declared the closure orders null and void.

Meanwhile, judge Majoka, in a separate case, granted pre-arrest bail to advocates Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha on Thursday in a case registered against them on the charges of alleged anti-state activities on social media.

During the pre-arrest bail hearing, both Mazari and Chatha appeared in the court with their counsel Advocate Riasat Ali Azad and District Bar President Naeem Gujjar.

Advocate Azad read out the FIR, arguing that the allegations were baseless and did not attract the sections invoked in the FIR. He said the only charge against Chatha was retweeting Mazari’s post, which, he argued, had already been addressed in prior High Court rulings.

He also pointed out that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a four-year-old incident, without any notice to the accused.

Supporting the plea, Advocate Gujjar said lawyers were being unfairly targeted for voicing concerns. He insisted the tweets in question merely highlighted grievances and contained no illegal or contemptuous material.

On the other hand, Sheikh Amir, representing the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA), countered that the posts were recent, from 2025, and that the accused had admitted authoring them but had refused to submit their devices for investigation.

After hearing both sides, Judge Majoka reserved the judgement and later accepted the bail applications of Mazari and Chatha.

In a separate development at the IHC, Chief Justice Dogar clashed with Mazari during the hearing of a petition seeking removal of Mahrang Baloch’s name from the Exit Control List.

The Chief Justice remarked that Mazari often portrayed him as a dictator, to which Mazari replied that she was only fulfilling her professional duty and had not acted outside the law.

The exchange grew tense when the Chief Justice suggested contempt proceedings, and Mazari responded that she was prepared to face such action if the court deemed it necessary. The hearing was later adjourned after the Deputy Attorney General informed the court that such matters must first be routed through the cabinet sub-committee.

Published in Dawn, September 12th, 2025