ISLAMABAD: The cross-examination of Anisur Rehman, an official of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) and a key witness in the controversial social media posts case against lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse Hadi Ali Chattha, was completed on Monday.
During the proceedings, Rehman refused to comment on previous statements by incumbent ministers and an ex-army official that touched upon the issue of missing persons, negotiations with rights activists and criticism of the military.
The statements were referred to by Chattha, who along with Mazari, cross-examined Rehman during today‘s hearing from the defence’s side.
Chattha and Mazari have been facing legal proceedings in the case on accusations of attempting to incite divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts and of creating the impression that the armed forces were engaged in terrorism within the country.
The first information report (FIR) of the case, registered with the NCCIA under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), alleged that the two held security forces responsible for cases of missing persons in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
It also stated that they had portrayed the armed forces as ineffective against proscribed groups, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka presided over the hearing of the case today, during which Hadi referred to a Dawn 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 leader also led the Haq Do Balochistan Tehreek, which was the subject of Dawn’s July 31 report and had been carrying out a protest march from Quetta to Islamabad, calling for an end to humiliation in the name of security and the release of rights activist Dr Mahrang Baloch and other detainees, among other demands.
The report said the Haq Do Balochistan had agreed to stage a protest camp outside the Lahore Press Club while a high-level federal government committee would hold talks with Maulana Hidayatur Rehman.
It said the announcement was made by Auragzeb, who assured the JI leaders that the Punjab government fully supported the legitimate demands of the people of Balochistan.
The report also quoted Maulana Hidayatur Rehman as saying that he hoped Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, who had previously raised her voice for Balochistan’s missing persons while in opposition, would continue that commitment as the provincial chief executive.
When Hadi asked prosecution witness Rehman to comment on the matter, he refused and said he would only offer an opinion if such a case came before him.
Chattha then cited statements attributed to Minister of State for Law Barrister Aqeel Malik carried in a report by Arab News regarding negotiations with Mahrang Baloch, who has vocal about the issue of enforced disappearances.
Chattha was apparently referring to a February 2025 report at that instance, which quoted Malik as saying that the government would engage with Mahrang and her Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) movement, provided it did not have an “ulterior motive“.
But, Rehman refused to comment on that as well.
Several videos were also played in the court, including one of Punjab CM Maryam’s speech. Slogans such as “uniform is behind terrorism” and “Bajwa is a thief” could also be heard in the clip.
When asked whether such an event would amount to opposing the state, Rehman said he would comment only after reviewing the video in an official capacity.
He also admitted that he was unaware whether enforced disappearances was a serious issue in Pakistan, whether a commission on missing persons existed, or what the state policy on the matter was.
A video showing an event of the outlawed Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were also played during the hearing. Police were seen facilitating arrangements in the video.
But the witness also declined to comment on that, maintaining that he would respond only if the matter formally came to him.
He also claimed ignorance about the banned status of the two groups.
Then, a statement by former director general of Inter-Services Public Relations Asif Ghafoor regarding missing persons was played, but Rehman refused to comment on that as well.
During cross-examination, Rehman told the court that he had an MPhil degree in computer science, had undergone departmental training and attended workshops on Peca, cybercrime, and the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, he had not received any training or attended workshops related to enforced disappearance cases, the witness said.
When asked to define the term “state”, the witness said to his understanding, it referred to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
He was then asked to identify any X post by Mazari or Chattha containing “explicit anti-state content”. To that, Rehman responded that the posts’ subject “pertains to a narrative” and they had no mention of any “armed struggle” against the state.
Rehman also acknowledged using the term “disinformation vector” in his report regarding the case, but he failed to explain the term when pressed to do so. He said he could not elaborate on it “right now.”
The witness further testified that the content under scrutiny was based on “manipulation” and said that the individuals named in his report were those who had reposted Mazari’s posts.
At a later point in the hearing, he said he had not mentioned any person other than the relevant accused in his report.
He said to his knowledge, all posts under scrutiny supported the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other banned outfits.
However, when a specific post from the case file was read out, the witness conceded that neither the BLA nor the TTP was explicitly named, but insisted that the post was against the state.
The witness also admitted he could not recall the date when “Mahrang was banned”, though he said he had checked the National Counter Terrorism Authority’s website while preparing the report.
He asserted that sharing statements of banned organisations or individuals constituted a crime.
Following the completion of his cross-examination by Mazari and Chattha, the court adjourned the hearing until January 7.
