ISLAMABAD: The cross-examination of Anisur Rehman, an official of the Nationwide Cyber Crime Investigation Company (NCCIA) and a key witness within the controversial social media posts case in opposition to lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her partner Hadi Ali Chattha, was accomplished on Monday.
In the course of the proceedings, Rehman refused to touch upon earlier statements by incumbent ministers and an ex-army official that touched upon the problems of lacking individuals, negotiations with rights activists and criticism of the navy.
The statements had been referred to by Chattha, who together with Mazari, cross-examined Rehman throughout right this moment’s listening to from the protection’s facet.
Chattha and Mazari have been dealing with authorized proceedings within the case on accusations of making an attempt to incite divisions on linguistic grounds by social media posts and of making the impression that the armed forces had been engaged in terrorism throughout the nation.
The primary info report (FIR) of the case, registered with the NCCIA below the Prevention of Digital Crimes Act (Peca), alleged that the 2 held safety forces accountable for instances of lacking individuals in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
It additionally said that they’d portrayed the armed forces as ineffective in opposition to proscribed teams, together with the Balochistan Liberation Military (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
Extra District and Classes Choose Muhammad Afzal Majoka presided over the listening to of the case right this moment, throughout which Hadi referred to a Daybreak report dated July 31, 2025. The report carried statements by Punjab Senior Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb and the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) Emir in Balochistan Maulana Hidayatur Rehman.
The JI chief additionally led the Haq Do Balochistan Tehreek, which was the topic of Daybreak‘s July 31 report and had been finishing up a protest march from Quetta to Islamabad, calling for an finish to humiliation within the identify of safety and the discharge of rights activist Dr Mahrang Baloch and different detainees, amongst different calls for.
The report mentioned the Haq Do Balochistan had agreed to stage a protest camp outdoors the Lahore Press Membership whereas a high-level federal authorities committee would maintain talks with Maulana Hidayatur Rehman.
It mentioned the announcement was made by Auragzeb, who assured the JI leaders that the Punjab authorities absolutely supported the respectable calls for of the folks of Balochistan.
The report additionally quoted Maulana Hidayatur Rehman as saying that he hoped Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, who had beforehand raised her voice for Balochistan’s lacking individuals whereas in opposition, would proceed that dedication because the provincial chief government.
When Hadi requested prosecution witness Rehman to touch upon the matter, he refused and mentioned he would solely supply an opinion if such a case got here earlier than him.
Chattha then cited statements attributed to Minister of State for Legislation Barrister Aqeel Malik carried in a report by relating to negotiations with Mahrang Baloch, who has been vocal in regards to the subject of enforced disappearances.
Chattha was apparently referring to a February 2025 report At that occasion, which quoted Malik as saying that the federal government would interact with Mahrang and her Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) motion, offered it didn’t have an “ulterior motive”.
However, Rehman refused to touch upon that as properly.
A number of movies had been additionally performed within the court docket, together with considered one of Punjab CM Maryam’s speech. Slogans equivalent to “uniform is behind terrorism” and “Bajwa is a thief” is also heard within the clip.
When requested whether or not such an occasion would quantity to opposing the state, Rehman mentioned he would remark solely after reviewing the video in an official capability.
He additionally admitted that he was unaware whether or not enforced disappearances was a critical subject in Pakistan, whether or not a fee on lacking individuals existed, or what the state coverage on the matter was.
A video displaying an occasion of the outlawed Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi had been additionally performed through the listening to. Police had been seen facilitating preparations within the video.
However the witness additionally declined to touch upon that, sustaining that he would reply provided that the matter formally got here to him.
He additionally claimed ignorance in regards to the banned standing of the 2 teams.
Then, a press release by former director normal of Inter-Companies Public Relations Asif Ghafoor relating to lacking individuals was performed, however Rehman refused to touch upon that as properly.
Throughout cross-examination, Rehman instructed the court docket that he had an MPhil diploma in laptop science, had undergone departmental coaching and attended workshops on PECA, cybercrime, and the Legal Process Code.
Nevertheless, he had not obtained any coaching or attended workshops associated to enforced disappearance instances, the witness mentioned.
When requested to outline the time period “state”, the witness mentioned to his understanding, it referred to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
He was then requested to establish any X put up by Mazari or Chattha containing “specific anti-state content material”. To that, Rehman responded that the posts’ topic “pertains to a story” and so they had no point out of any “armed battle” in opposition to the state.
Rehman additionally acknowledged utilizing the time period “disinformation vector” in his report relating to the case, however he failed to elucidate the time period when pressed to take action. He mentioned he couldn’t elaborate on it “proper now.”
The witness additional testified that the content material below scrutiny was primarily based on “manipulation” and mentioned that the people named in his report had been those that had reposted Mazari’s posts.
At a later level within the listening to, he mentioned he had not talked about any particular person apart from the related accused in his report.
He mentioned to his information, all posts below scrutiny supported the Balochistan Liberation Military (BLA) and different banned outfits.
Nevertheless, when a particular put up from the case file was learn out, the witness conceded that neither the BLA nor the TTP was explicitly named, however insisted that the put up was in opposition to the state.
The witness additionally admitted he couldn’t recall the date when “Mahrang was banned”, though he mentioned he had checked the Nationwide Counter Terrorism Authority’s web site whereas making ready the report.
He asserted that sharing statements of banned organizations or people constituted against the law.
Following the completion of his cross-examination by Mazari and Chattha, the court docket adjourned the listening to till January 7.
