Ahmad Noorani from Washington DC

A judge appointed to oversee PECA cases in Islamabad has been caught red-handed tampering with court records to expedite trials of individuals accused of blasphemy. The judge falsely listed a female lawyer as a state-appointed attorney, despite her never having appeared in his court.

Documentary evidence clearly establishes that Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, Additional Sessions Judge (East) Islamabad, appointed as the special judge for PECA cases, is guilty of misconduct and has demonstrated bias in blasphemy-related cases, where the only punishment is the death penalty.

The majority of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) cases involve blasphemy allegations, which, when combined with other laws, carry a mandatory death sentence.

Support Investigative Journalism – – – Support Fact Focus on GoFundMe

https://GoFundMe.com/FactFocus

Judge Majoka has been found tampering with records to expedite trials of individuals accused in blasphemy cases, many of whom were targeted by the Blasphemy Business Group (BBG). Reports indicate his frequent private meetings in his judge chamber with Rao Abdul Raheem, the head of BBG, raising serious concerns about judicial impartiality. 

Not only this, statistics show that his court has issued the highest number of death sentences in cases linked to the BBG. According to the lawyers connected to the blasphemy cases, his rulings in blasphemy cases represent the highest number of death sentences ever issued by a single judge in Pakistan’s history. This is the first time documentary evidence has surfaced regarding his conduct as a judge.

On March 4, 2025, Abrar Hussain Shah, an accused in the blasphemy case titled Muhammad Ali Abbas vs. State, engaged a new lawyer after previously being unable to afford legal representation due to financial constraints. He, along with others, was charged under Sections 295-A, 295-B, and 295-C of the Cr.P.C., Section 22 of PECA 2016, and Section 109 of the PPC.

The newly appointed counsel, Hadi Ali Chattha, was informed by Judge Majoka that the case proceedings were nearly complete, with only the statements under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C. remaining to be recorded. The judge further stated that a verdict would be issued following the final arguments.

The family of the accused, through the new counsel, requested access to the case file. Upon reviewing the case file, they discovered that the judge had recorded a weak and ineffective cross-examination. According to Judge Majoka, this cross-examination had been conducted by a state-appointed attorney representing Abrar Hussain Shah. However, the recorded cross-examination appeared to work against the accused rather than in his defense. This revelation shocked the family, as they were unaware of any such cross-examination ever taking place.

In the official court case file, Judge Majoka stated that the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, Abrar Hussain Shah, was conducted by state-appointed attorney Ms. Nabila Irshad. However, the cross-examination was evidently structured in a manner that worked against the accused.

The most striking aspect of the fraudulent case documents was that a well-known FIA officer, Mudassir Shah, was listed as a witness. His fictitious cross-examination was fabricated by Judge Majoka, who falsely used the name of Advocate Nabila Irshad. Additionally, BBG Chief Rao Abdul Raheem, the complainant’s attorney in the case, was also present. Everyone involved was aware that fake documentation was being created in a case that could result in a death sentence for the accused. This highlights the alarming strength of the nexus between the BBG, the judiciary, and the FIA.

FIA officer Mudassir Shah, currently posted in Peshawar, is a key witness in the majority of blasphemy cases in Islamabad. He played a crucial role in protecting Rao Abdul Raheem in the Abdullah Shah murder case by falsely implicating Abdullah’s father, Amir Shah, in a case of committing blasphemy of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Amir Shah, who was the complainant in his son’s murder case, was coerced into giving a statement before the police investigation officer in favor of Rao.

For quite some time, the families of victims had been informing the media that Judge Majoka personally questioned the accused under the pretense of cross-examination and hastily concluded trials, ultimately sentencing them to death. However, this is the first time he has been exposed through concrete documentary evidence including statement of a senior lawyer whose name was misused.

Here is a copy of the cross examination of this case.

Cross Examination (PDF) [From Court Case File]

The family of the accused, certain that no such cross-examination had ever taken place, reached out to state-appointed attorney Ms. Nabila Irshad. Advocate Nabila unequivocally denied any involvement in the case or conducting the alleged cross-examination. She stated that while she had been appointed as the state counsel, she was later informed that someone else had been assigned in her place, and she never participated in any cross-examination in this case.

This was a shocking revelation for the family, already enduring a devastating ordeal as their young son had been framed in a false blasphemy case by a notorious gang.

This was a blatant violation of judicial principles and the fundamental rights of the accused. Abrar Hussain Shah was tried without legal representation, and fraudulent cross-examination records were fabricated and inserted into his case file to rush the trial to completion. In response, the family of the accused filed a formal complaint with the Member Inspection Team (MIT) against Judge Majoka’s misconduct. The complaint, submitted by Syed Abrar Hussain Shah, included all relevant documents as evidence.

Constitution of Independent Commission 

FactFocus first exposed the operations of the Blasphemy Business Group (BBG) in July 2024. Through documentary evidence, this reporting uncovered the connection between members of the Cyber Crimes Wing (CCW) of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the BBG. 

Since then, further investigations have revealed even more alarming developments, including the abduction of individuals accused of blasphemy by this private group, torture in secret detention cells, the prolonged possession of mobile phones belonging to victims by BBG members, and custodial torture, which has resulted in the deaths of five young individuals, including a 22-year-old girl from Lahore.

More recently, FactFocus uncovered the abduction and murder of Syed Abdullah Shah, along with the collusion of FIA officials in weaponizing blasphemy laws against his father. This was done to pressure him into settling his son’s murder case, in which Rao Abdul Raheem, the head of the Blasphemy Business Group, was a central figure. The FIR of blasphemy against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) filed against Amir Shah, the father of the murdered Abdullah Shah and also the complainant in the murder case, was a fabricated document against a Pakistani citizen, raising serious questions about the misuse of blasphemy laws. It is clear that, with the blasphemy FIR against Amir Shah proven to be fake, blasphemy laws can no longer be used against citizens without a thorough analysis of all related cases and evidence by a high powered commission. Specifically, until those involved in the murder of Abdullah Shah are immediately arrested and punished, the use of blasphemy laws should be suspended. This is because both the executive and the judiciary were directly involved in the closure of the Abdullah Shah murder case through the misuse of blasphemy laws. Documentary evidence presented by the Fact Focus has proved all this.

Now, through further documentary evidence, FactFocus has revealed the role of a key Sessions Court judge actively overseeing multiple blasphemy cases and fast-tracking death sentences by tampering with court hearings and documents.

The urgent need for an independent commission to prevent further miscarriages of justice cannot be overstated. A comprehensive investigation, led by independent experts in their respective fields, is necessary to fully expose the extent of this nefarious network, which operates with the backing of FIA officials, certain members of the judiciary, and some parliamentarians. Only a high-powered commission of top experts can provide a factual account of the systematic abuse of blasphemy laws for personal and political agendas.

Following is the text of the complaint filed against Additional Secession Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka  

Dated: 08.03.2025

To:

Member Inspection Team,

Islamabad High Court,

Constitution Avenue, G-5,

Islamabad.

Contact No. 051-9198116

SUBJECT: APPLICATION/COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, ISLAMABAD MUHMMAD AFZAL MAJOKA

Sir,

1. I write to you today to formally lodge a complaint of misconduct against ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(East) Islamabad, Judge MUHAMMAD AFZAL MAJOKA, in connection with proceedings in my brothers case (details listed below):

i. IN CASE FIR No. 48/2023 titled The State v. Muhammad Ali Abbas (u/s 11 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 r/w 295-A,295-B,295-C,298-A &109 PPC)

2. My complaint relates to the biased and illegal conduct of the aforementioned Judge in the proceedings in my brother’s case. Initially our family was not able to engage a counsel on behalf of the accused due to financial constraints as well as the sensitive nature of the case. We were finally able to engage a counsel on 04.03.2025. The counsel faced difficulty in procuring the file, however once obtained, upon consulting the file, the counsel had informed us that all the prosecution evidence has been produced and subsequently cross examined by the state counsel (Advocate Nabila Irshad) and the instant case was fixed for the submission of answers under section 342 CrPC. My brother and I learned for the first time today that a state counsel was appointed, as this was done without the consent or knowledge of my family or my brother (accused).

3. My brother was never informed that a state counsel was being assigned on his behalf. In fact, he was never given a list of state counsels from which he could select one of his choice. Furthermore, not on a single hearing was I informed by the Court that a state counsel has been appointed on behalf of my brother. However, what is even more troubling is that when I contacted the state counsel on 07.03.2025, she informed me that she was never appointed as state counsel in this case, that she has never appeared in the instant case on behalf of my brother, nor did she ever conduct any cross examinations on his behalf. The state counsel has given me an affidavit dated 07.03.2025 in this regard which affirms the above. That my brother has effectively been deprived of his right of defence.

(Copy of affidavit dated 07.03.2025 is attached herein)

4. The above events indicate the misconduct of the Judge in hearing the case of my brother. I am unable to comprehend how any cross-examinations were conducted in the absence of a counsel. I am further unable to understand how the name of a counsel who has never appeared in this case is recorded as someone who has cross-examined witnesses on behalf of my brother. Nor how her name is reflected as state counsel in the order sheets when she was never appointed as such. It calls into question who truly conducted the cross-examinations on behalf of my brother, how the court allowed cross-examinations to be conducted by someone who was not a counsel of behalf of my brother, and how these illegal cross-examinations were allowed to become part of the record by the Judge.

5. The conduct of the Judge has raised serious apprehension in my mind as to how strictly and properly procedure is being followed in my brother’s case especially considering that the punishment of the sections under which he is charged is the death penalty. As a specially appointed Judge to oversee PECA cases, this Judge is in charge of hundreds of similar cases for which the punishment is the death penalty. If my brother was deprived of his right to defence, it is very likely that the same has been happening in other cases under the same sections.

6. That the aforementioned reflects serious and gross misconduct on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge (East) Islamabad, Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka and I hereby formally lodge the instant Complaint seeking redressal of my grievances, and inquiry into these acts of misconduct which have resulted in maladministration of justice.

Syed Abrar Hussain Shah

s/o Syed Shokat Hussain Shah

---