ISLAMABAD: An Islamabad district and sessions court rejected on Thursday an application submitted by lawyer and rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, seeking her acquittal in a controversial social media posts case.

Judge Mohammad Afzal Majoka, who was presiding over the proceedings, also rejected an application moved by Mazari and her husband, co-accused Hadi Ali Chattha, challenging the appointment of a counsel by the state to represent them in the case registered with the National Cybercrime Investigation Agency (NCCIA).

Both of them have been accused of attempting to incite divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts and of creating the impression that the armed forces were engaged in terrorism within the country.

At the hearing today, Mazari and Chattha, along with lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat, Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) President Naeem Ali Gujjar, Islamabad Bar Council member Raja Aleem Abbasi and other legal representatives, appeared before the court.

The court’s previous orders were read out to Marwat, who presented arguments challenging the appointment of a counsel by the state to represent Mazari and Chattha.

Marwat cited several Supreme Court judgments in support of his arguments.

Abbasi endorsed the arguments presented by Marwat, pointing out that the accused had “explicitly expressed a lack of confidence” in the state-appointed counsel.

Abbasi, however, urged the court on Thursday to recall the prosecution’s witnesses, saying that the defence should be allowed to conduct a “surgery” through proper cross-examination.

He requested the court to treat the case against Mazari and Chattha “as a routine case” and summon the witnesses again to “ensure fairness”.

Then, Marwat sought more time from the court, saying that “things might improve if proceedings are reset”.

After the completion of arguments on the application challenging the appointment of a counsel by the state for Mazari and Chattha, the court reserved its decision on the matter and later dismissed it.

Before concluding the November 29 hearing, Judge Majoka had directed the prosecution to prepare and submit the questionnaire under Section 342 of the CrPC to the accused by December 4 (today) and instructed Mazari and Chattha to submit their replies.

The next hearing of the case will be held tomorrow.

Separately, Mazari today rushed an application before the SC, urging it to take up, preferably by tomorrow, her and Chattha’s joint appeal against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) denial of interim relief to them in the social media post case.

On December 1, the IHC had issued notices but denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause.

Subsequently, Mazari and Chattha had moved a joint appeal yesterday before the SC through their counsel Faisal Siddiqi under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, seeking to set aside the IHC order. Mazari urges SC to urgently take up plea against denial of interim relief

Separately, Mazari today rushed an application before the SC, urging it to take up, preferably by tomorrow, her and Chattha’s joint appeal against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) denial of interim relief to them in the social media post case.

On December 1, the IHC had issued notices but denied ad-interim relief of staying the trial without a just legal cause.

Subsequently, Mazari and Chattha had moved a joint appeal yesterday before the SC through their counsel Faisal Siddiqi under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, seeking to set aside the IHC order.

Now in their fresh application before the SC, the lawyers reiterated their request before the SC and pleaded that the criminal trial against them was at its concluding stage, highlighting extreme urgency in the matter.

Therefore, Mazari and Chattha urged the SC to fix the hearing by December 5 (tomorrow).

The application contended that the petitioners had filed a criminal revision before the IHC to question the trial proceedings in view of violations of due process as prescribed under CrPC, particularly the recording of evidence in the absence of the petitioners.

The plea argued that the petitioners have a clear prima facie case because the recording of evidence in their absence was not only a violation of Section 353 (evidence to be taken in presence of accused) of the CrPC, but also their due process and fair trial rights under Article 10A of the Constitution.

As the criminal trial is at its concluding stage, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners because the prosecution would not be prejudiced if the trial is delayed for two weeks, the application argued.

Thus, the present criminal appeal will become infructuous, the application argued.

Published in Dawn, December 5th, 2025