August 1, 2026
By Hashir Ahsan
ISLAMABAD
In an application filed in the Supreme Court, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali have requested the court to fix the hearing of their sentence suspension appeals for next week.
The application states that the Supreme Court had previously directed the Islamabad High Court to decide the matter within two weeks. Although the prosecution raised objections regarding the maintainability of the sentence suspension petitions, the court rejected those objections.
Despite this, the court issued notices to the parties on the sentence suspension requests and adjourned the hearing indefinitely, failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.
The petitioners noted that during the previous hearing, the court itself had given the option to file an application for an early hearing.
The sentence suspension petitions of Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali were heard by Justice Azam Khan of the Islamabad High Court. During that hearing, the counsel for the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) objected to the petitions, arguing that they were premature and should be declared non-maintainable.
The NCCIA counsel requested the court to hear their miscellaneous application first, stating that if the other application were heard prior to it, theirs would become ineffective.
During the proceedings, Imaan Mazari’s counsel, Faisal Siddiqui, informed the court that he was ready to argue the miscellaneous application and suggested that both applications could be heard together if the court deemed it appropriate.
Justice Azam Khan remarked that the counsel should prepare thoroughly first, as it would be better for his clients’ rights.
To this, Faisal Siddiqui maintained that he was willing to forego those rights and proceed with his arguments immediately.
Subsequently, the court dismissed the NCCIA’s miscellaneous application against the sentence suspension requests and adjourned the hearing indefinitely. Following this outcome, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha once again approached the Supreme Court, filing an application seeking an early hearing of the case.
Earlier, during the last hearing on the petition of Imaan and Hadi, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that it cannot regulate the proceedings of the High Court. A three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard the case.
During the hearing, Additional Attorney General Rana Asad informed the court that this case had already been scheduled for a hearing at the Islamabad High Court on July 24.
Faisal Siddiqi argued that the case was scheduled in the High Court precisely because of the hearing in the Supreme Court. He stated that justice is expected from the Supreme Court and noted that the previous hearing had also been adjourned upon the prosecution’s request.
At this point, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked, “Sitting in the Supreme Court, we cannot regulate the proceedings of the High Court.”
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi contended that the Supreme Court has issued orders to High Courts in numerous cases.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar clarified that there is a difference between regulating proceedings and issuing orders. Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing of the case, holding that if any emergency situation arises, the petitioners may file an application for an early hearing.
Tweets case
On February 7, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha had filed appeals in the Islamabad High Court on against the sentence passed by the trial court in the Tweets case.
Along with the main appeals, applications for sentence suspension were also submitted, requesting the court to suspend the punishment and release them on bail until a final decision is reached.
In their appeals, they argued that the trial court failed to fulfill legal requirements by announcing the verdict while a case transfer application was still pending before the High Court, which is legally not permitted.
They also stated that the trial court disregarded transparency by terminating their right to defense, and failed to investigate even after a state counsel complained that questions had been shared in advance.
Additionally, the appellants claimed they were subjected to violence during their arrest on their way to the trial court, an issue the court ignored during video link proceedings.
They also questioned how cross-examination could legitimately be conducted via video link from prison without access to the case file.