ISLAMABAD: Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majuka directed appointment of a state counsel for Iman Mazari while hearing the controversial tweet case against Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha here on Wedesday.
At the start of the proceedings, neither Iman Mazari nor Hadi Ali Chatha appeared in court for the third time, prompting the court to adjourn briefly. Later, Chatha appeared, while a counsel also appeared on behalf of Iman Mazari. When the court directed the prosecution to proceed with recording the witnesses’ testimony, Hadi Ali Chatha objected that testimony could not lawfully be taken in the absence of the accused and left the court. Shortly afterwards, the lawyers representing both Hadi Ali Chatha and Iman Mazari walked out of the courtroom, however the hearing continued in their absence. On the court’s instructions, the courtroom security was further tightened. The state counsel Kifayatullah Wazir representing Hadi Ali Chatha was present. During the hearing, complainant Shahroz Riaz recorded his statement. The prosecution presented a USB containing a video of Iman Mazari’s speech, which was played in court. Additionally, various tweets spanning 11 pages were made part of the record. Four prosecution witnesses including Investigation Officer Imran Haider recorded their statements completing the testimony by prosecution witnesses. The court issued a letter directing the appointment of a state counsel for Iman Mazari. The court ordered cross-examination of witnesses at the next hearing and adjourned the case until November 24. The case has been registered by the NCCIA against Iman Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha. In a separate case, Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majuka recorded the statements of three additional witnesses in the TikToker Sana Yousuf murder case and adjourned the hearing until November 26. Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Majuka recorded the statements of three prosecution witnesses. Public Prosecutor Naveed Hussain appeared before the court. The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded but the defence lawyers were unable to cross-examine them. The court was informed that statements of a total of 11 witnesses have now been recorded, while the testimony of the remaining witnesses could continue at the next hearing.
