ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has scheduled for May 12 the appeals of Advocate Imaan Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chatha, who are seeking suspension of their sentences in the controversial tweets case.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Wahid, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Shafie Siddiqui will hear the matter. The listing of the appeals marks the first time in months that the case has been formally fixed before the apex court.
اہم خبر ، سپریم کورٹ نے ایڈوکیٹ ایمان مزاری اور ہادی علی چٹھہ کی اپیلیں 12 مئی کو سماعت کے لیے مقرر کر دیں جسٹس شاہد وحید ، جسٹس نعیم اختر افغان اور جسٹس شفیع صدیقی پر مشتمل بنچ سماعت کرے گا اپیلوں میں متنازع ٹویٹس کیس میں سزا معطلی کی استدعا کی گئی ھے pic.twitter.com/YJ3QeCdge3
— Saqib Bashir (@saqibbashir156) May 7, 2026
Mazari, a prominent human rights lawyer, and Chatha were handed sentences in January 2026 amounting to nearly 17 years under various provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), including cyber terrorism, glorification of offence, and dissemination of false information. The charges stemmed from tweets and retweets posted between 2021 and 2025, many of which criticized enforced disappearances and state actions in Balochistan.
The couple has remained behind bars for over 100 days, with rights groups including Amnesty International decrying what they describe as judicial harassment and deliberate delays in hearing their appeals. Activists argue that the case exemplifies misuse of PECA to stifle dissent and human rights advocacy, drawing international attention.
Observers note that while fixing a case is ordinarily routine administrative work, the scheduling of these appeals is seen as a significant development given the political sensitivity and prolonged delay. With the Supreme Court facing a massive backlog, the listing of such a high-profile matter signals movement that could lead to relief, continued proceedings, or at least renewed judicial engagement.
Reports in Islamabad belive the May 12 hearing is expected to be closely watched by rights groups, legal circles, and political observers as a potential turning point in a case widely criticized as emblematic of shrinking space for free speech and judicial independence in Pakistan.
