The story of the NCCIA and PECA case against Iman Zainab Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha stretches across several months. It shows a pattern of leniency from the courts and a pattern of delay and disruption from the accused. Looking at the timeline from the start in August to the later stages in January, the case raises basic questions about equal treatment, court dignity, and the way long criminal trials can be derailed when accused persons push every possible procedural edge.
It all began on twenty-two August, twenty twenty-five, when the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency registered an FIR against both accused for alleged offences under several sections of the PECA Act. These sections relate to incitement, public mischief, and use of digital platforms for unlawful acts. Even at this early stage, the treatment was unusual. Despite the seriousness of the charges, both accused were spared arrest and simply added to the investigation. Most ordinary citizens in similar cases rarely receive this level of relief at the very start.
Pre-arrest bail proceedings followed quickly. On twenty-nine August, Iman Mazari secured interim pre-arrest bail from an Additional District and Sessions Judge without delay. A week later, the hearing was pushed forward because counsel was not present. Then on eleven September, the court confirmed bail for both accused even though there were more than a dozen lawyers present.
Once bail was secured, both accused gave public comments that mocked the case and brushed aside the judicial process. This set the tone for the months that followed
By mid September, the prosecution filed the challan. The case was marked back to the same judge. Summonses were issued for twenty and twenty-two September. Both dates passed without the accused appearing. As a result, the court issued non-bailable warrants. Even then, this consequence did not last long. On twenty four September, the accused appeared, replaced their lawyers, and managed to get the warrants cancelled. This happened despite the settled rule that such warrants normally mean the bail stands cancelled on its own. Again, they received relief that the other accused rarely sees.
On the 30th of September, the court called the case three times to frame the charge. Both accused failed to appear again. Their lawyers accepted the charges on their behalf, then withdrew their power of attorney. The court issued fresh non-bailable warrants. The very next day, a new counsel stepped in, secured cancellation of the warrants, had the bail restored, and requested more time to file replies. The court granted this request. The pattern repeated through early and mid-October.
Dates on seven, eleven, thirteen, sixteen, twenty, and twenty-four October passed with adjournments based on claims about lawyer unavailability, plans to challenge orders, or simple requests for more time. Each time the court indulged the accused
The end of October brought renewed warrants. On twenty-nine October, neither accused appeared even after several calls during the day. Warrants were issued for Hadi Ali Chattha. The next day, charges were framed again, and once more the warrants were cancelled. During this hearing, Hadi Ali Chattha behaved in an unruly way. After an apology from counsel, the court restored the surety bonds instead of taking strict action.
The situation escalated on five November. The accused interrupted proceedings, spoke in a disrespectful way, and demanded that the trial stop because they had filed an application before MIT. The court halted the hearing due to this conduct. During evidence recording, they caused chaos, argued with their own lawyers, and then fled the courtroom. Fresh non-bailable warrants were issued. Their counsel withdrew from the case.
The pattern did not change. On six November, the accused arrived late, sought cancellation of warrants, and asked for more time to find new counsel. The court approved both requests. More absences followed on eight, fourteen, and seventeen November, each tied to new counsel changes or objections to the State Defence Counsel.
The court clarified that any change in State Counsel must come from the District Legal Empowerment Committee and that this can only be challenged before the High Court. Even then, the court continued to show patience
Over this long stretch, the court showed a level of tolerance far beyond what most citizens would expect. The accused used delay, absence, shifting legal teams, and repeated moves to higher courts to keep the trial from moving forward. When the case finally reached nineteen November, the same disruptions resurfaced. Iman Mazari requested an exemption after noon. Hadi Ali Chattha interfered directly with the trial. The court still granted a partial exemption and proceeded to record testimony with the State Counsel present. According to reports, Hadi Ali Chattha even pressured his wife’s counsel to leave the court.
Higher courts later stepped in. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court gave the accused yet more relief and ordered re recording of evidence. By this stage, the trial had dragged on for months. Even with eight vakalatnamas on record, Hadi Ali Chattha cross-examined witnesses himself. When only one witness remained, the delays started again. Iman Mazari sought a medical exemption without presenting any certificate.
Once the court insisted on proper appearance, both accused absconded. The court issued warrants and cancelled their bail
Then came the order from the Islamabad High Court. On twenty January, the court gave another layer of relief, telling both accused to surrender before the trial court. It also instructed the trial court to finish the case within three days. This brought the case into its final phase.
The full timeline shows about five months of proceedings since the FIR. Four months of trial hearings. Forty-four hearing days. Each delay came from non-appearance or procedural tactics. The court repeatedly waited for both accused to arrive, a courtesy not given to most people. Cross-examination of five prosecution witnesses still lagged because of these tactics. If the tweets at issue were defensible, the accused could have defended them in court.
The allegations themselves involve tweets said to support groups like BLA and individuals on the proscribed list. The state argues these posts spread harmful narratives, create ethnic friction, and undermine public trust in national institutions. These are criminal offences under PECA if proven.
Seen as a whole, the conduct of both accused appears intentional. Each step aimed to slow the process, discredit the court, or sidestep basic procedural duties. The long list of adjournments, absences, and disruptions undermines the court’s authority and challenges the rule of law.
