NCCIA moves SC to withdraw order on Imaan, Hadi sentence suspension pleas

ISLAMABAD: The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) has approached the Supreme Court (SC) seeking recall of its May 12 order directing the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to decide the sentence suspension pleas of lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in a case linked to controversial tweets.

According to the plea, the NCCIA argued that the Supreme Court should not intervene in a matter already pending before a high court. It maintained that the power to decide an application for suspension of sentence rests with the relevant high court, which must hear all parties and decide the issue in accordance with the law.

The agency further contended that the apex court, through its May 12 order, had issued directions to the IHC in a manner inconsistent with the principle that pending proceedings should be decided by the concerned high court without interference. It asked the Supreme Court to withdraw the order, saying this was necessary in the interest of equal treatment of all parties.

The NCCIA also stated that the accused were not entitled to any special concession or preferential treatment and said judicial proceedings should follow the principle of parity. It further argued that a party cannot directly move the Supreme Court against a high court decision merely issuing notices to the other side for hearing. The agency requested the apex court to recall its May 12, 2026 order so the case could proceed before the relevant high court strictly in line with the law.

Earlier Supreme Court direction

Last month, the Supreme Court directed the IHC to decide the sentence suspension pleas of Imaan and Hadi by May 26. The order was passed by a three-member bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shafi Siddiqui while hearing the couple’s plea for suspension of sentence.

In January, a district and sessions court in Islamabad sentenced the couple to 17 years in prison each under various sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), one day after their arrest in another case. They later challenged their sentences before the IHC in early February.

IHC adjourns hearing

In separate proceedings, the IHC adjourned the hearing of the sentence suspension pleas without taking up the matter after the special prosecution team did not appear before the court. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan was hearing the case when the court was informed that a three-member special prosecution team had been appointed, but none of its members was available at the time.

The prosecutor told the court that one team member had come from Lahore, while another was engaged in proceedings before Court No 1, preventing the team from appearing and advancing arguments. Justice Azam Khan observed that he had been nominated for mediation training and had attended court only for this matter, adding that he had missed his 8:30am training class because of the proceedings.

During the hearing, the judge asked the prosecutor whether he was aware of the Supreme Court order. State counsel Ali Azad Advocate replied that the period granted under the apex court’s order had already lapsed. The court was also told that the petitions had been filed in light of the Supreme Court’s directions.

Counsel for the couple, Faisal Siddiqi, proposed that the case could be taken up once the prosecutor became free from proceedings in Court No 1. The prosecutor, however, asked the court to fix the matter for Thursday or the following Monday. Justice Azam Khan then asked whether Siddiqi would be available on Thursday before fixing the next date. He later adjourned the matter until June 4 after scheduling it for Thursday.

Faisal Siddiqi also requested the court to direct the prosecution not to seek further adjournments, citing repeated delays. The judge responded that such directions should not be repeatedly issued and remarked that all sides were bound by the Supreme Court order.