ZUBAIR QURESHI
The Supreme Court on Thursday suspended the sentences of human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, in a controversial social media posts case and ordered their release on bail pending a decision by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
A two-member SC bench, headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and comprising Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, heard the couple’s appeals against the IHC’s refusal in February to suspend their sentences.
The court granted bail to both on furnishing surety bonds of Rs200,000 each and suspended the operation of their conviction of January 24.
According to the written order, the SC converted the couple’s petitions into appeals and directed their release on bail until the decision on their pending appeals before the IHC. The surety bonds are to be furnished with the SC’s additional registrar (judicial).
On January 24, an Islamabad sessions court had sentenced Imaan and Hadi to a cumulative 17 years in prison on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca). The couple, who had already been jailed a day earlier in a separate case, later challenged their convictions before the IHC.
The convictions had drawn criticism from lawyers and United Nations experts.
During Thursday’s hearing, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui, representing the couple, submitted that the Supreme Court had on May 12 directed the IHC to decide the couple’s applications seeking suspension of their sentences as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks.
However, the May 26 deadline passed without a decision on the suspension applications. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) subsequently challenged the SC’s May 12 order and sought its withdrawal.
The SC had repeatedly adjourned proceedings in the matter, with the bench noting that the IHC had fixed the applications for suspension of sentence along with the main appeals.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Justice Afghan observed that the appellants were practising lawyers and said the court would maintain their dignity. At the same time, he asked their counsel to advise them to observe the decorum of the court.
“There is a difference between a lawyer and an ordinary person,” the judge observed.
The Supreme Court will issue a detailed judgment in the matter later.
