Tweets case: Hadi Ali Chatha files acquittal plea, challenges FIR

By Nadir Baloch

ISLAMABAD: A day after a state-appointed lawyer for human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chatha on Tuesday refused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in the controversial tweet case, telling the court he could not ask questions “imposed” on him, Additional Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Mujoka resumed hearing of the tweets case on Thursday.

Accused Hadi Ali Chatha and Imaan Mazari appeared in court. The judge directed both accused to consult with the newly-appointed prosecutor and begin cross-examining witnesses two hours later.

After the recess, when the hearing resumed at 1:30pm, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha jointly told the court that newly-appointed state counsel Muhammad Taimoor Janjua was not following their instructions and was “forcing” them to cross-examine all witnesses the same day.

State counsel Taimoor Janjua maintained that he consulted both the accused and questions had been prepared. He even told the court that Hadi Ali Chatha served him a ‘fantastic tea’.

During the proceedings, however, Hadi Ali Chatha filed an acquittal application under Section 265-K, upon which the court sought arguments.

Hadi Ali Chatha argued his own plea for acquittal from 1:30pm to 4:00pm.

Reading the text of the FIR in court, he contended that no specific allegation had been mentioned against him.

He argued that neither was it stated what post he shared or retweeted, nor were the details of the accusations recorded as legally required in an FIR.

He pointed out that the case cited “Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Chatha and others,” yet the challan was submitted only against the two of them. “Where are the others?” he asked, noting the absence of such information in record. He also referred to various sections of the PECA Act.

Chatha also read aloud his written submission to the FIA, arguing that the FIR was based on a “source report” filed by Shehroz Riaz, and no procedure or legal requirement for an FIR was followed.

“We are pursuing several blasphemy-related cases,” he said, adding that before the Islamabad High Court, they had already questioned FIA’s conduct.

He further stated that he had cross-examined witness Anees-ur-Rehman multiple times in a blasphemy case, and even FIA’s Sarfaraz — who initiated inquiries against them — was now under custody.

“They allege criminal silence on my part because of my wife’s tweets — where is the document showing any inquiry against me?” he argued, stating that PECA’s procedural requirements were never followed.

He then showed the judge screenshots of tweets, stating that the posts in question were reposted by hundreds of others. He said the screenshots submitted by prosecution were stitched from two pictures, while both sides’ phones had not undergone forensic examination.

He referred to precedents of higher courts where absence of forensics weakened evidence. He argued that under Section 10, motive must be established — something neither the FIR nor the witnesses explained.

During the hearing, Chatha said that the claim he “remained silent” over tweets made by his wife was baseless, adding that some tweets included in the case belonged to a period when Mazari “was not even his wife”.

“How could I, sitting in Multan, tell her why she tweeted something?” he asked. He further argued that unless a tweet targets an individual official’s rank or personal identity, the circumstances differ — and nothing in this case indicates that.

He said police, army and ISI are state institutions and citizens have the right to request action from them. He questioned NCIAs procedure, saying no forensic examination of video evidence was conducted — despite NCIAs own claim that it performs forensics itself, which violates legal protocol.

Arguing on witness testimonies, Chatha said the initial challan listed four witnesses but five had recorded statements in court, and the unlisted fifth witness cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Tensions rose when hot words were exchanged between Special Prosecutor Usman Rana and Chatha. Chatha said the prosecution comes unprepared and begins preparing inside court. Rana responded that he would expose Hadi’s “ugly face.” The heated exchange created a tense courtroom atmosphere.

Chatha further argued that NCCIA has a defined legal procedure for registering an FIR, whereas in this case the entire prosecution is based only on two Twitter accounts and one “technical report.”

He presented Supreme Court judgments and said that prosecution’s material could even be grounds for action *against them*. He said the source report used against him was unreliable and the entire process violated legal principles — therefore his acquittal should be granted.

After Chatha concluded his arguments, the prosecution requested time to present arguments the next day. The court adjourned the hearing until November 29.