ISLAMABAD: The legal proceedings against human rights lawyer and activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband and lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, have stretched for more than a year, beginning with a National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) complaint in August 2025 and culminating, so far, in the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on Thursday to grant them bail and suspend the effect of their 17-year sentences in the controversial social media posts case, pending proceedings before the Islamabad High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case centres on social-media posts that the prosecution alleged promoted narratives associated with hostile or proscribed groups, criticised the security forces and sought to create divisions on linguistic grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mazari and Chattha denied the allegations and challenged the proceedings at several stages, arguing, among other things, that their right to a fair trial had been compromised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The couple were ultimately sentenced by an Islamabad sessions court to 17 years each, with the sentences to run concurrently, under Sections 9, 10 and 26-A of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Their conviction triggered criticism from lawyers, rights groups and UN experts, while government representatives defended the judicial process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The controversy that led to the convictions began with a complaint registered on August 12, 2025 by an NCCIA investigating officer in Islamabad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the prosecution\u2019s case, Mazari had disseminated and \u201cpropagated narratives that align with hostile terrorist groups and proscribed organisations\u201d. Chattha was implicated primarily over reposting some of her social-media posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The FIR alleged that the couple had held security forces responsible for cases involving missing persons in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan and had portrayed the armed forces as ineffective against proscribed groups including the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case was registered under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 26 of Peca.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On September 8\/9, an Islamabad sessions court granted Mazari and Chattha interim pre-arrest bail, restraining the cybercrime agency from arresting them while it sought the agency\u2019s response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On September 11\/12, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail after hearing arguments from both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defence argued that the sections invoked in the FIR did not apply and that, in Chattha\u2019s case, the allegation essentially concerned the reposting of one of Mazari\u2019s posts. The defence also argued that some of the material related to an earlier period. The prosecution opposed the bail and maintained that the tweets were attributable to the couple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case took a dramatic turn on October 29, when Chattha was arrested outside an Islamabad courtroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka issued an arrest warrant after finding that Chattha had not appeared before the court at the required time and cancelled his bail bonds. Mazari publicly objected to the arrest, saying her husband had appeared in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The following day on October 30, an Islamabad district and sessions court indicted both Mazari and Chattha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The prosecution accused them of attempting to create divisions on linguistic grounds through social-media posts and of creating the impression that the armed forces were engaged in terrorism within Pakistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both denied the charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On November 5, the trial court issued non-bailable arrest warrants for both after they failed to appear at a hearing. Chattha also expressed lack of confidence in the trial proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The following day, however, the court withdrew the warrants. The defence challenged aspects of the proceedings, including the appointment of state counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On November 28, Chattha sought acquittal in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The defence also objected to the appointment of state counsel and questioned the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal or appointment of lawyers representing the couple. Mazari raised concerns about an application attributed to one of their lawyers seeking removal from the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On December 4, the Islamabad sessions court rejected Mazari\u2019s application seeking acquittal. It also rejected an application challenging the appointment of state counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Dec 5, Mazari and Chattha submitted a list of defence witnesses. Chattha also sought permission for both accused to record their statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to produce defence witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same day, the couple filed an application expressing lack of confidence in the trial judge and seeking transfer of the case to another court. The petition alleged that transparency requirements were not being met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proceedings then reached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Dec 11, a three-member SC bench headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, with Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, ordered a stay<\/a> of the trial proceedings until the Islamabad High Court decided the relevant pending matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defence had argued that prosecution witnesses had been examined in circumstances that raised questions about the accused\u2019s presence and right to a transparent trial. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of a fair process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On December 16, the Islamabad High Court directed the trial court to record the prosecution witnesses\u2019 statements afresh within three days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Muhammad Azam Khan issued the order while hearing Mazari\u2019s petition against the trial court\u2019s November 19 proceedings, during which prosecution witnesses had been examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IHC made clear that its direction did not address the merits of the allegations but was concerned with the procedure followed in recording the evidence. The trial court subsequently began recording the witnesses\u2019 statements again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On December 23, proceedings became particularly tense when lawyers representing the prosecution and defence nearly came to blows after a heated exchange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In early January, the defence continued cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 7, Mazari and Chattha asked the trial court to summon the DG ISPR as a defence witness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their case was that the witness could assist the court in determining questions arising from the allegations concerning the military and the social-media material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 15, the trial court cancelled the couple\u2019s bail after they failed to appear before it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majoka also terminated their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge ordered their arrest and production before the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 16, the trial court directed the Islamabad police to arrest Mazari and Chattha within 24 hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge warned that failure to execute the order could lead to contempt proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 17, non-bailable warrants were reissued after the couple again did not appear before the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple challenged the arrest orders before the IHC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 19\/20, the IHC granted protective relief, allowing them to appear before the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 20, Justice Muhammad Azam Khan restored their bail and reinstated their right of defence, suspending the trial court\u2019s earlier orders. The court also directed that cross-examination be completed within three days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 21, the IHC granted them pre-arrest bail in another case relating to a July 2025 Baloch Yakjehti Committee protest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As police moved to arrest them in connection with another case, Mazari and Chattha took refuge at the Islamabad High Court Bar Association president\u2019s office, where they spent the night after an arrest warrant<\/a> was issued against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IHC subsequently granted them bail in the BYC-related case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On January 23, the couple were arrested near the underpass outside the Serena Hotel while travelling towards the district courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The arrest was in a separate case concerning a protest outside the IHC and an alleged scuffle with the IHC Bar Association president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An anti-terrorism court subsequently sent them on 14-day judicial remand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The arrest prompted protests and criticism from sections of the legal fraternity, journalists and rights groups, who raised concerns about the treatment of the lawyers and their right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One day after their arrest in the separate case, the Islamabad sessions court delivered its verdict in the social-media case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mazari and Chattha were sentenced to 17 years each, with the sentences running concurrently:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Five years each under Section 9 of Peca, relating to glorification of an offence, plus a Rs5 million fine each; 10 years each under Section 10, relating to cyberterrorism, plus a Rs30 million fine each and two years each under Section 26-A, relating to false and fake information, plus a Rs1 million fine each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total prison term for each accused was therefore 17 years, while the combined fines amounted to Rs72 million. The court acquitted them of the Section 11 hate-speech charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court said the prosecution had proved its case. The couple, however, had boycotted the proceedings after appearing through video link and raising objections concerning their treatment in custody and the conduct of the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The convictions triggered strong reactions from lawyers, civil-society organisations, political figures and rights groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n UN special-procedure experts had already communicated concerns to the Pakistani government in December 2025, saying they had received allegations concerning repeated prosecutions, arrests, fair-trial violations, threats and intimidation against Mazari and Chattha in connection with their work as lawyers and human-rights defenders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the conviction, UN experts publicly raised concerns about the 17-year sentences and the implications for freedom of expression and the work of human-rights defenders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On February 7, Mazari and Chattha filed separate criminal appeals before the Islamabad High Court challenging their convictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They asked the IHC to set aside the trial court\u2019s Jan 24 judgment and also sought suspension of their sentences pending disposal of their appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On February 19, the IHC admitted the appeals for consideration and issued notices<\/a> to the NCCIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also issued notices on their applications seeking suspension of their sentences, but did not suspend the sentences at that stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On March 2, the IHC dissolved<\/a> the bench hearing the couple\u2019s appeals and directed that the matter be placed before the chief justice for constitution of a new bench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This further complicated the proceedings against the couple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In late April, Mazari and Chattha approached the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of their challenge to the IHC\u2019s February 19 order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple argued that although the IHC had issued notices, their applications for suspension of sentence had not been decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On May 12, a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed directed the IHC to decide the couple\u2019s applications seeking suspension of sentence within two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SC kept the matter pending before itself until the high court reached a decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IHC proceedings did not conclude within the period set by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On June 1, the IHC adjourned the sentence-suspension applications because members of the special prosecution team were unavailable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June, the NCCIA also challenged the Supreme Court\u2019s May 12 direction, arguing that the authority to decide sentence-suspension applications rested with the high court and that the SC should not interfere while the matter was pending there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On June 17, the couple again approached the Supreme Court seeking an early hearing of their challenge to the IHC\u2019s Feb 19 order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IHC fixed the sentence-suspension applications for hearing on July 24.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the Supreme Court also listed the matter for July 21, creating an issue concerning parallel proceedings in the two courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 21, the SC adjourned the proceedings after hearing arguments about whether the matter should continue while the IHC was seized of the applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 24, the IHC reserved its decision on whether the sentence-suspension applications were maintainable. The NCCIA had argued that the applications were premature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 25\/26, however, Justice Muhammad Azam Khan rejected the prosecution\u2019s objection and declared the applications maintainable\/admissible, clearing the way for the high court to consider the suspension requests on their merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter returned to the Supreme Court in August.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A two-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim questioned the continuing delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Afghan remarked that the \u201csystem should be fully exposed\u201d after defence counsel expressed concern that the matter could continue disappearing from the court schedule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defence told the SC that its May 12 order directing the IHC to decide the suspension applications within two weeks had not been implemented. The government side maintained that the IHC had its own procedure for fixing cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SC adjourned the matter until Sept 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On September 4, the IHC disposed of miscellaneous applications seeking an early hearing because the main sentence-suspension petitions had already been fixed for Sept 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On September 8, the IHC was due to hear the sentence-suspension applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the NCCIA prosecutor was unavailable, and no substantial proceedings<\/a> could take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Muhammad Azam Khan consequently adjourned the matter until Sept 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That meant the couple\u2019s applications for suspension of their sentences remained undecided despite the Supreme Court\u2019s earlier direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Thursday, September 17, the Supreme Court finally intervened directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A two-member bench comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard the couple\u2019s plea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SC granted bail to Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha pending the final decision of the IHC and ordered their release against surety bonds of Rs200,000 each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Afghan said that both applicants were lawyers and that the court was respecting their dignity, while also stressing that they should observe the decorum of the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government opposed the relief, arguing that the IHC had not yet decided the matter and that Section 426 provided the high court with the relevant jurisdiction to suspend a sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Afghan, however, questioned the repeated adjournments before the IHC and referred to the earlier Supreme Court direction requiring the high court to decide the matter within two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court\u2019s latest order therefore changes the immediate position of the couple: they are to be released on bail while the IHC proceedings on their appeals and sentence suspension continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IHC\u2019s next scheduled hearing on the sentence-suspension applications is September 23, although the effect of Thursday\u2019s Supreme Court order will now have to be reflected in those proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PAK SOUCH MEDIA GROUP<\/p>\n\n\n\n Daily Pak Souch Newspaper Sukkur \u2013 Daily Pak Special Newspaper Karachi \u2013 Daily Pak Today Newspaper Karachi – Daily Pak Jazbo Newspaper Sukkur<\/p>\n\n\n\n Head Office : Ayub Gate Shaikh Muhalla Near Rabbania Masjid Sukkur<\/p>\n\n\n\n Karachi Office : Office No. 1901-B, 19th Floor Saima Trade Tower (B) Block I.I Chandigarh Road Near Jung Press, Shaheen Complex & National Museum of Pakistan Karachi Sindh Pakistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contact : 03009319022<\/p>\n\n\n\n Website 1 : https:\/\/paksouch.com\/<\/a> ISLAMABAD: The legal proceedings against human rights lawyer and activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband and lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, have stretched for more..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15947,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-pakistan"],"featured_image_urls":{"full":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53.png",800,947,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53-150x150.png",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53-253x300.png",253,300,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53-768x909.png",768,909,true],"large":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53.png",800,947,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53.png",800,947,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/paksouch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Pak-Souch-Social-Media-Poster-53.png",800,947,false]},"author_info":{"info":["admin"]},"category_info":"Pakistan<\/a>","tag_info":"Pakistan","comment_count":"0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15946"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15946\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15948,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15946\/revisions\/15948"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/15947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/paksouch.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Dec 16\u201317 \u2014 IHC orders witnesses to be recorded afresh<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Dec 23 \u2014 tense courtroom exchange<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 5\u20137, 2026 \u2014 cross-examination and DG ISPR request<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 15 \u2014 bail cancelled and right of cross-examination withdrawn<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 16\u201317 \u2014 arrest orders and warrants reissued<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 19\u201321 \u2014 protective bail and restoration of defence rights<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 22 \u2014 couple takes refuge at IHC Bar office<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 23 \u2014 arrest near Serena Hotel<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 24 \u2014 17-year sentences<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Jan 25\u2013Feb 2026 \u2014 national and international reaction<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Feb 7 \u2014 appeals filed in IHC<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Feb 19 \u2014 IHC issues notices but does not suspend sentences<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
March 2 \u2014 IHC appeal bench dissolved<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
April\u2013May \u2014 couple approaches Supreme Court<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
June \u2014 repeated delays<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
July 2026 \u2014 maintainability becomes another issue<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Aug 20\u201321 \u2014 SC questions delay<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Sept 4 \u2014 early-hearing application disposed of by IHC<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Sept 8 \u2014 hearing adjourned again<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Sept 17 \u2014 Supreme Court grants bail and suspends sentences<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Website 2 : https:\/\/sindhi.paksouch.com\/<\/a>
Website 3 : https:\/\/pakjazbo.com\/<\/a>
Website 4 : https:\/\/urdu.pakjazbo.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"