The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday fixed for September 8 the petitions seeking suspension of the sentences handed down to Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in a controversial tweets case.The registrar’s office issued the cause list on Thursday, confirming the hearing date. Justice Azam Khan will hear the petitions seeking suspension of the sentences of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha.

Human rights activist lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi filed their sentence suspension pleas in January 2026 after a trial court convicted them in the controversial tweets case. It is pertinent to mention here that last month on July 25, pronouncing a reserved verdict, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) declared the petitions filed by human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha, seeking suspension of their sentences in the controversial tweets case, admissible for the hearing.  

The court hence rejected the miscellaneous petition filed by the prosecution, raising objections to the admissibility of the pleas on the grounds that they had been filed prematurely.  The court had reserved the verdict on Friday after hearing the arguments by parties to the case. Later, the court adjourned the case’s hearing for an indefinite time period.  

During the hearing of the case on Friday, counsel for the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) said that such applications could not legally be submitted before six months had elapsed and requested that the agency's miscellaneous application be heard first. Representing Imaan Mazari, advocate Faisal Siddiqi opposed the objection and said that if the agency wanted the sentence suspension applications to be dismissed, both matters should be heard together.

He told the court that he was ready to present his arguments. Justice Azam asked whether either of the convicts had received any remission in their sentences. Counsel for the NCCIA replied that only prison authorities or the appellants' lawyer could provide that information. Justice Azam Khan observed that even the appellants' counsel might not have the necessary information and suggested that the court could seek a report from the superintendent of Adiala Jail. 

Siddiqui opposed the proposal and urged the court to hear his arguments first. He maintained that his clients' application had been filed under a legal provision different from the one cited by the NCCIA. He further argued that a fresh miscellaneous application could not be filed merely to challenge another miscellaneous application, describing the agency's request as legally untenable and highly absurd.

Credit: Independent News Pakistan (INP)