During a second hearing of the case on Monday, Ghias’s lawyer Imaan Mazari appeared and said she would submit power of attorney at the next hearing.
The court ordered that arguments should be submitted at the next hearing, and the request for a restraining order should be discussed.
Earlier in the day, Additional Sessions Judge Sheikh Muhammad Sohail heard the case, during which Maria B’s lawyer Barrister Abdul Ahad Khokher appeared on her behalf while no one appeared on behalf of Ghias.
Khokher argued that Ghias should stop tweeting and posting videos, adding he was doing so despite a case in court. The barrister said the case was underway and negative propaganda was being spread.
Khokher asked the court to prohibit Ghias from sharing tweets and videos.
The court adjourned the hearing until Ghias or his lawyer appeared.
The civil suit, a copy of which is available with Images, claimed that Ghias made “several false, frivolous and baseless allegations against” Maria B.
It continued, “The defendant has made several allegations, including but not limited to that the plaintiff has used Islam, with a negative connotation, to promote her brand; the defendant has mocked the plaintiff’s affinity to Islam by saying that she has rebranded herself as an Islamic thought leader to sell her hideous clothes, which demeans the Plaintiff’s love of faith, and the defendant further said that the Plaintiff has been the cause of [the] deaths of many people especially trans.
“That she has promoted her brand on the back of a genocide, ie Palestine genocide. That she has a foreign passport and prostrates in front of foreign rulers just for the sake of citizenship. The defendant has also alleged that the plaintiff has made money out of the blood of trans people. The defendant incited people/mob to attack the store of the plaintiff so that the plaintiff would get a lesson.”
It claimed that Ghias said “that during the initial days of Covid, she had sent her house help in bus just to save herself and put the life of many other people in danger and caused the spreading of virus.”
The suit stated: “It is reiterated that all of the statements made by the defendant in the videos against the plaintiff are highly despicable, are based on lies and concocted just to damage her reputation and the statements have lowered the plaintiff in the estimation of others. The plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen and has never been directly or indirectly involved in harming anyone.”
It claimed that Maria B always tried to “create harmony among different sections of the society through her philanthropic works”, “always tried to help people in need”, her campaign for Palestine received widespread recognition and she donated the entire proceeds of the Palestine collection to Palestine.
The suit continued that Maria B campaigned for intersex rights and against LGBTQ culture and that she made the public aware of the difference between transgender and intersex.
“The allegation of having foreign passports and bowing before foreign rulers is obnoxious without any basis and has put the patriotism of the plaintiff into question.
“The story of household help was debunked at the time but the defendant is still using the alleged occurrence to malign and defame the plaintiff. The house help of the plaintiff did not have Covid and whole of the story is frivolous.”
It continued that Ghias’s statements “have lowered the esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of the general public as well as friends, relatives, acquaintances and [the] public at large,” adding that the podcaster’s words exposed Maria B to “undue hate, dislike, contempt, undue criticism.”
“The statements have also caused mental agony and stress to the plaintiff as well as financial loss. The defendant has also hurt the religious sentiments of the plaintiff. That by making the abovementioned statements the defendant has caused injury/harm to the personal interests of the Plaintiff.”
The suit maintained that Ghias’s statements make him the “originator” according to Section 2(dd) of the Defamation Ordinance 2002, which states that the “‘originator’ means the initiator of the defamatory statement or any other defamatory act”, and that it fulfilled the definition of publication under Section 2(e), which states, “‘publication’ means the communication of the words to at least one person other than the person defamed and includes a newspaper or broadcast through the internet or other media.”
“The statements made by the defendant fulfil all the ingredients of defamation as mentioned in the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and enunciated by the courts of law in Pakistan,” the suit stated.
It requested that Ghias pay general and special damages of Rs500 million to Maria B, along with the cost of the suit, tender an apology “with the same prominence through which the defamatory statements were made”, delete the videos and not repeat “such defamatory statements in any manner whatsoever.
In a video posted to Maria B’s Instagram account on Thursday, she shared her clips from Ghias’ podcast The Pakistan Experience in which he interviewed transgender rights activist Shehzadi Rai and called her a “D-grade designer” and said she used the blood and “murders” of transpeople to sell her clothes, with Rai chiming in that she also used the plight of Palestine for sales.
