Court removes reference under Section 152 CrPC in wake of FO distancing itself from judge’s remarks
Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
A trial court in Islamabad has rescinded a section from its judgement in a social media post case against rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, that referred to certain countries as “terrorist states”, it emerged on Friday.
The two were convicted in Islamabad last week in a case linked to alleged posts and reposts on X that investigators described as “anti-state”. The case was registered in August 2025 by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, with allegations that the content was aimed at undermining state institutions and aligning with proscribed organisations or individuals.
District and Sessions Judge Islamabad Afzal Majoka had observed that the accused had described Pakistan as a “terrorist state” in their posts, a designation that, according to the order, was officially applied only to four countries: Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and Syria.
The Foreign Office spokesperson was questioned about the observation in his weekly press briefing a day ago and asked for Pakistan’s policy stance on the matter, to which he responded: “We have seen the judgment. These are views of the learned judge. Pakistan, of course, does not subscribe to this opinion. This kind of designation of terrorist states does not exist either in the UN parlance or under international law.”
Subsequently, an order from the judge, dated January 27, emerged today that said NCCIA Special Public Prosecutor Muhammad Usman Rana had filed an application on Jan 24 for “correction of errors … wherein due to typing mistake a sentence … was
written due to a clerical mistake which is not supported by any statutory provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference so the some may be deleted because this sentence is vague and ambiguous”.
The order added that the stenographer had mentioned in the written reply that the sentence, along with others, was deleted during correction of judgment but it was wrongly included in the judgement at the time of final printing and “that this mistake on his part is bona fide”.
Quoting Section 152 of the Criminal Procedure, the order said that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
Thus, the judge said: “In the instant case there is no relevancy of the above said sertence and have no nexus with the question of determination of rights of the parties. This sentence is not supported by any statutory provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference so, keeping in view the law laid down in the abovementioned esteemed citations, this application is accepted. Corsequently, the sentence is deleted.”
