Pakistan’s Supreme Court halted on Thursday the trial of rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Chatha, who are facing prosecution over social-media posts that authorities allege were defamatory and incited public disorder.
The court ordered proceedings to remain suspended until the Islamabad High Court (IHC) rules on their pending appeals.
A three-judge bench said the trial would “remain stopped until the Islamabad High Court decides the matter”, adding that it expected the IHC to issue a ruling “as soon as possible”.
The case has drawn international and domestic scrutiny, with lawyers, journalists, human rights observers and Norway’s ambassador to Pakistan, Per Albert Ilsaas, attending Thursday’s hearing.
The hearing
Mazari’s counsel, Faisal Siddiqui, argued that the case had become legally complex following amendments to Pakistan’s cybercrime legislation in 2016. The additional attorney general (AAG) objected to the maintainability of the appeal, prompting Siddiqui to retort: “Then I will say it. I am not mute.”
Justice Hashim Kakar asked whether the matter was already before the IHC. Siddiqui confirmed the appeal was listed for Dec. 16, adding that the defense had informed the High Court that if no ruling was issued, the trial court could continue its proceedings.
The bench also questioned the conduct of the accused at earlier hearings. “Their behavior has also not been very good,” Justice Kakar said.
“Both are lawyers, yet they protested during the proceedings. We will not allow members of the subordinate judiciary to be disrespected, and the government also cannot be allowed to punish anyone it wishes.”
Siddiqui, while referencing earlier rulings authored by Justice Kakar and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, drew a light-hearted response from Justice Kakar: “Do you have any enmity with me that you keep citing my decisions repeatedly?” Siddiqui replied that the judge had “set an entire jurisprudence” while accommodating a junior lawyer in one of those cases.
The court also examined whether Pakistan’s cybercrime law permits proceedings without the presence of defense counsel. Siddiqui said it did not, though criminal procedure rules still applied. He added that under Section 342, written questions could be provided without direct verbal questioning.
Justice Kakar remarked that he had followed much of the public debate around the case through social media. Siddiqui said state counsel had argued that written submissions were sufficient and oral arguments were unnecessary. Justice Panhwar asked the defense whether they did not “want to get justice quickly”.
Justice Kakar cautioned the prosecution: “You cannot punish them without evidence.”
He said complications had arisen from both sides and added, “Whatever I do, I will not allow the High Court or the trial court judge to be disrespected. We three judges may leave one day, but we will not let the courts be dishonored.”
The AAG maintained that the appeals were not maintainable. Justice Kakar responded: “Do not restrict speech here. Let the petitioner’s lawyer speak.”
He added, “During our student days, all three of us judges have been to jail. If you do not let people speak here, they will go elsewhere to speak.”
When asked whether the government objected to the IHC deciding the matter, the AAG said there was no objection.
The Supreme Court then disposed of the appeals filed by Mazari and Chatha, leaving the matter for the Islamabad High Court to determine.
Comments
See what people are discussing