Court dismisses petitions in Iman Mazari, Hadi Ali Chattha Tweet Case

WEB DESK: The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muhammad Afzal Majoka, has dismissed three separate petitions filed by Iman Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha in the controversial tweet case.

The court rejected Mazari’s petition seeking acquittal, as well as the request for a retrial. Another petition concerning the State Counsel was also dismissed. The judge had reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments earlier in the day.

During the hearing, the court instructed Iman Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to record their statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code at 2:00 pm. The proceedings were paused until that time, after which the case will continue.

The dismissal of these petitions marks a significant development in a case that has drawn considerable public attention due to the social media controversy surrounding the accused.

Earlier developments

Last week on November 27, the Islamabad court had resumed the tweet case following a dispute over cross-examination of witnesses. A day earlier, the state-appointed lawyer had refused to question prosecution witnesses, claiming he could not follow imposed instructions. Both Mazari and Chatha appeared in court, where the judge directed them to consult with newly-appointed state counsel Muhammad Taimoor Janjua and begin cross-examination after a two-hour recess.

Upon resumption, the couple told the court that Janjua was allegedly forcing them to cross-examine all witnesses on the same day, while the lawyer maintained he had consulted them and prepared the questions. During proceedings, Chatha filed an acquittal plea under Section 265-K, arguing that the FIR lacked specific allegations against him, including details of posts or retweets, and improperly listed only him and Mazari while referencing “others” without further identification.

Chatha challenged the procedural validity of the FIR, noting it was based on a “source report” and violated PECA Act requirements. He highlighted that screenshots were manipulated, no forensic examination of devices was conducted, and no motive had been established as required by law. He also contested witness testimonies, citing inconsistencies in the number of witnesses and the inclusion of a fifth, unlisted witness.

Further, Chatha questioned procedural lapses by the NCCIA and other agencies, stating that some tweets predated his marriage and emphasizing citizens’ right to address state institutions. He cited Supreme Court precedents undermining the prosecution’s evidence. A heated exchange occurred between Chatha and Special Prosecutor Usman Rana, intensifying courtroom tensions.