ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Monday heard a petition filed by lawyer couple Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, with their counsel alleging that the ongoing trial in the controversial tweet case is not being conducted transparently.
Advocate Ali Azad, representing the couple, told the court that the trial court had failed to ensure a fair process. He said that under the law, witness statements must be recorded in the presence of the accused or their counsel, and added that some cross-examination had taken place outside the courtroom, which he argued violated basic principles of a fair trial.
Justice Azam Khan, who presided over the hearing, asked whether all lawyers present were there for the case. Advocate Azad responded that the matter was of significant importance, noting the attendance of several bar members and stating that the accused were practising lawyers. Members of the Islamabad Bar Council, including Raja Aleem Abbasi and Zafar Khokhar, were also present.
When asked about developments on November 24, Chattha said they had requested that witness statements be recorded in their presence but the application was rejected.
Advocate Zafar Khokhar submitted that while a trial could continue under a permanent exemption, proceedings should not continue under a one-day exemption without the pleader being present. Justice Azam Khan asked the lawyers to cite the specific legal provisions supporting this distinction.
The defence requested the IHC to halt proceedings in the trial court. Justice Azam Khan said the court would examine the matter and issue an appropriate order. The hearing was then adjourned.
Mazari and Chattha have previously raised objections after a state-appointed counsel withdrew from the case. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency has accused both of posting anti-state content on X, formerly Twitter.
They were formally charged on October 30, a day after Chattha was arrested outside the courtroom for failing to appear. Mazari has maintained that video footage showed her husband “inside and outside the courtroom” at the time. Ahead of the latest hearing, she alleged that the court had “forcibly appointed” state counsel for the couple.
