An Islamabad court has ordered the removal of a controversial paragraph from the verdict convicting lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in the high-profile tweets case. The paragraph had referred to four countries as “terrorist states,” sparking debate and criticism.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka stated in an official order that the paragraph was included “due to a clerical mistake.” The judge clarified that the reference was “not supported by any statutory provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument, or authoritative reference,” and described it as “vague and ambiguous.” As a result, the paragraph, originally appearing as paragraph 36 on page 18 of the judgment, has been formally deleted.
The judgment explained that during the corrections of the initial draft, the stenographer had deleted the sentence along with other remarks. However, it was mistakenly reinserted in the final printed version, an error the court described as “bona fide.”
The deleted paragraph had been widely noted for its assertion that the four countries mentioned are “currently designated as terrorist states.” The removal underscores the court’s acknowledgment that such references were incorrect and unsupported by law.
The decision follows earlier remarks by the Foreign Office. During a weekly press briefing, spokesperson Tahir Andrabi emphasized that Pakistan “does not subscribe” to the judge’s opinion. He clarified that Pakistan does not recognize such designations either under United Nations frameworks or international law.
The Islamabad court’s corrective order highlights the importance of precision in legal judgments and reinforces the separation between judicial observations and official state positions. It also resolves concerns raised over the inclusion of statements that lacked legal and factual basis, ensuring that the verdict reflects only legally supported content.
This development concludes the matter of the disputed paragraph, maintaining the integrity of the court’s judgment while removing any unintended implications related to international designations.
