ATC proceedings disrupted as lawyers boycott testimony in Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali case

ISLAMABAD: Lawyers representing human rights activists and lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, along with Shireen Mazari, boycotted proceedings of an anti-terrorism court on Wednesday after the judge decided to record prosecution witnesses’ statements despite the defence’s request to defer the exercise until they could meet the accused. The court subsequently recorded statements of three witnesses in the absence of the accused and their counsel, taking the total number of witnesses examined so far in the case to six. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra recorded the statements after the accused, their counsel and Shireen Mazari, a former minister and Ms Imaan’s mother, boycotted the proceedings and walked out of the courtroom over the court’s decision to proceed with the recording of testimony. During the hearing, Aimal Khan Mandokhail, counsel for Imaan and Hadi, informed the court that he had visited Adiala jail but could not meet his clients despite having a court order permitting the meeting. He said it was a designated meeting day for lawyers, but roads had been blocked around one-and-a-half kilometres away from the jail. A court official infor­m­­ed the judge that the jail auth­orities had conveyed that the accused would be produced through a video link. Mr Mandokhail reques­ted the court to ensure physical appearance of the accused. The judge observed that reports had been received from the police and jail authorities indicating that a special vehicle was not available for their transportation. Prosecutor Raja Naveed Hussain Kiyani requested the court to record the witnesses’ statements on the day. The judge agreed, saying the matter of cross-examination could be taken up later. Mr Mandokhail clarified that his instructions concerned cross-examination and said there were no specific directions from the lead counsel regarding the recording of the witnesses’ statements. He said that they should meet the accused before the proceedings continued. Hadi Ali Chattha also requested the court to summon the accused to the courtroom, while Imaan Mazari urged that their privacy be respected, observing that conversations in the meeting area were recorded. He maintained that the accused were the primary stakeholders in the proceedings and had a legal right to be heard. He said the court had stressed the need to satisfy all stakeholders. When the recording of the witnesses’ statements began, the defence lawyers and Shireen Mazari walked out in protest. Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha’s counsel also left the courtroom. The court subsequently recorded the witnesses’ statements in the absence of the accused and their lawyers. Published in Dawn, October 15th, 2026

Islamabad court adjourns further proceedings until October 14

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Monday directed jail authorities to allow lawyers representing human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to meet them in prison as the couple raised concerns over their access to their legal counsel and the fairness of proceedings in a case related to the removal of security barriers. The couple was indicted in the case on Oct 7. The case pertains to the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest. On Oct 10, the ATC had disposed of the couple’s plea seeking to drop the terrorism charges. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, who presided over the hearing on Monday, ordered that Advocates Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and Aimal Khan be allowed to meet the accused in jail. Imaan’s mother, former human rights minister Dr Shireen Mazari, appeared before the court along with Advocates Azad and Khan, while the couple attended the proceedings via video link. The defence sought an adjournment, informing the court that the Oct 10 order was also being challenged before the Islamabad High Court. “If your petition is accepted by the high court, the proceedings in this court will come to an end,” the judge remarked. Azad emphasised the need for a fair trial, saying the defence did not know what had happened or where the alleged incident had taken place. The judge also questioned the defence about whether proceedings conducted before the accused joined via video link should be treated as a trial. Azad replied in the affirmative. Justice Sipra recalled that at the previous hearing, Advocate Janjua had argued that proceedings could not be considered a trial because Imaan and Hadi had not been present via video link. During the hearing, the couple had complained about facing difficulty in communicating via video link, with Imaan and Hadi saying their voices were breaking up. “If we cannot meet then, how are we supposed to proceed with the case?” Advocate Azad asked. The judge observed that the anti-terrorism law required the trial to proceed on a daily basis and asked the prosecution how many witnesses remained to be examined. The prosecutor informed the court that nine witnesses had yet to be produced before the court. The judge then directed the prosecution to ensure that the accused were granted access to their lawyers. Meanwhile, Hadi objected to the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted and questioned why he and Imaan were not being presented before the court in person. “This goes against the principles of a fair trial,” he said, adding that they had been in jail for eight months and were struggling to pursue their case. He also raised concerns over the privacy of consultations with their lawyers, saying cameras had been installed in the designated meeting area at the jail, making confidential discussions difficult. “You are the ones who must decide our fate; please summon us to court,” Hadi told the judge, adding that the court had to determine whether he and Imaan were terrorists. The court adjourned further proceedings until Oct 14. In a related development, the court took exception to an apparent contradiction in reports submitted by Adiala jail authorities concerning Imaan’s production through a video link in separate cases. On Oct 10, the jail authorities produced Imaan before the ATC through a video link in the case pertaining to the removal of security barriers. However, in a report submitted in the case involving former MNA Ali Wazir, the same authorities stated that she could not be produced through a video link on that date because of a lack of internet connectivity. Judge Sipra expressed astonishment at the discrepancy and questioned the preparation of the reports. “Do you not read what you write in your reports? Do you just copy-paste?” the judge asked. The judge noted that Imaan had appeared through a video link in one case on Oct 10, while the jail authorities had cited the absence of internet service to explain her non-production in another case on the same day. The court issued a fresh show-cause notice to the jail authorities over the matter and directed them to produce Imaan through a video link in the case on Oct 19.

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Monday directed jail authorities to allow lawyers representing human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to meet them in prison as the couple raised concerns over their access to their legal counsel and the fairness of proceedings in a case related to the removal of security barriers. The couple was indicted in the case on Oct 7. The case pertains to the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest. On Oct 10, the ATC had disposed of the couple’s plea seeking to drop the terrorism charges. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, who presided over the hearing on Monday, ordered that Advocates Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and Aimal Khan be allowed to meet the accused in jail. Imaan’s mother, former human rights minister Dr Shireen Mazari, appeared before the court along with Advocates Azad and Khan, while the couple attended the proceedings via video link. The defence sought an adjournment, informing the court that the Oct 10 order was also being challenged before the Islamabad High Court. “If your petition is accepted by the high court, the proceedings in this court will come to an end,” the judge remarked. Azad emphasised the need for a fair trial, saying the defence did not know what had happened or where the alleged incident had taken place. The judge also questioned the defence about whether proceedings conducted before the accused joined via video link should be treated as a trial. Azad replied in the affirmative. Justice Sipra recalled that at the previous hearing, Advocate Janjua had argued that proceedings could not be considered a trial because Imaan and Hadi had not been present via video link. During the hearing, the couple had complained about facing difficulty in communicating via video link, with Imaan and Hadi saying their voices were breaking up. “If we cannot meet then, how are we supposed to proceed with the case?” Advocate Azad asked. The judge observed that the anti-terrorism law required the trial to proceed on a daily basis and asked the prosecution how many witnesses remained to be examined. The prosecutor informed the court that nine witnesses had yet to be produced before the court. The judge then directed the prosecution to ensure that the accused were granted access to their lawyers. Meanwhile, Hadi objected to the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted and questioned why him and Imaan were not being presented before the court in person. “This goes against the principles of a fair trial,” he said, adding that they had been in jail for eight months and were struggling to pursue their case. He also raised concerns over the privacy of consultations with their lawyers, saying cameras had been installed in the designated meeting area at the jail, making confidential discussions difficult. “You are the ones who must decide our fate; please summon us to court,” Hadi told the judge, adding that the court had to determine whether he and Imaan were terrorists. The court adjourned further proceedings until Oct 14. In a related development, the court took exception to an apparent contradiction in reports submitted by Adiala jail authorities concerning Imaan’s production through a video link in separate cases. On Oct 10, the jail authorities produced Imaan before the ATC through a video link in the case pertaining to the removal of security barriers. However, in a report submitted in the case involving former MNA Ali Wazir, the same authorities stated that she could not be produced through a video link on that date because of a lack of internet connectivity. Judge Sipra expressed astonishment at the discrepancy and questioned the preparation of the reports. “Do you not read what you write in your reports? Do you just copy-paste?” the judge asked. The judge noted that Imaan had appeared through a video link in one case on Oct 10, while the jail authorities had cited the absence of internet service to explain her non-production in another case on the same day. The court issued a fresh show-cause notice to the jail authorities over the matter and directed them to produce Imaan through a video link in the case on Oct 19.

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Saturday disposed of a petition seeking to drop terrorism charges against human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, in a case related to the removal of security barriers erected for the English cricket team. The court also sought an explanation, which was provided after a brief adjournment, from jail authorities for failing to produce the accused in person despite a court order. The couple were indicted by the ATC on Tuesday in the case. Both opposed the framing of charges, arguing that they had not been provided copies of the case record or allowed to meet their lawyers. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra was hearing the case in which the couple have challenged the framing of terrorism charges. Neither accused was initially produced before the court, and no representative of the jail administration appeared to explain their absence. The judge directed prosecution and police officials to contact the jail authorities by telephone to ascertain the reason for their non-production. He also ordered the submission of a written explanation via WhatsApp by 11am. Advocate Aimal Khan requested the court to ensure the personal appearance of both accused, pointing out that an earlier order had directed the authorities to produce them either physically or through a video link. The couple were subsequently produced before the court through a video link. Dr Shireen Mazari also appeared, along with lawyers Zainab Janjua and Aimal Khan. At the outset of the hearing, Judge Sipra inquired about photographs taken during the previous proceedings and imposed a ban on mobile phones inside the courtroom. The restriction was later lifted following a request by court reporters. Advocate Zainab Janjua informed the court that the accused had challenged the framing of charges before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), where their petition was scheduled to be heard on Monday. She requested the trial court to defer proceedings until the high court considered their challenge. “What does it matter? If the framing of charges is set aside, the entire proceedings will come to an end,” Judge Sipra remarked, observing that the challenge before the high court did not automatically prevent the trial court from proceeding. The judge also questioned why the trial had stalled at this stage, noting that superior courts had already dealt with related matters and that a show-cause notice had previously been issued. Janjua questioned the repeated failure of jail authorities to produce the accused despite standard operating procedures governing their appearance. She also sought an adjournment, saying senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was unavailable. During the video-link hearing, Chattha told the court that he and his wife respected the judge and had regularly appeared before him. Referring to the principle of a fair trial, he said they had learnt from the judge that judicial proceedings could not be conducted without due process. “Why are we not being produced before the court?” he asked, questioning how their right to a fair trial under Article 10 of the Constitution was being protected. He also referred to newspaper reports stating that charges had been framed against them. Judge Sipra asked whether the couple had challenged the framing of charges, observing that the high court could set them aside if they had not been framed in accordance with the law. The judge also directed a prison official to arrange chairs for the accused during their video-link appearance and questioned why they had not been brought to court physically as ordered. He directed the relevant authorities to submit a written explanation by 11am regarding the failure to produce the couple. The court adjourned the proceedings pending the submission of the report by the jail administration. When the hearing resumed, the court disposed of the petition seeking to drop the terrorism charges, saying that this was not an appropriate stage to grant the relief sought without hearing arguments from the lawyers representing the two accused, whose counsel had boycotted the proceedings. During the proceedings, the court noted that, according to the report submitted by the jail authorities following the adjournment, the Islamabad Police had failed to provide an escort to bring Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to court. The court observed that the two accused could not be brought to court because the police had failed to provide the required security. Advocate Janjua said the state was acknowledging that the accused had not been brought to court owing to its own failure to provide an escort. “On the one hand, the state is asking the court to record the witnesses’ statements today, while, on the other, the same state is failing to provide security for Imaan and Hadi to appear before the court,” she remarked. She maintained that the failure to ensure their appearance was undermining the accused’s right to a fair trial. Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial. Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case pertaining to controversial social media posts. The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts. On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision. However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand. The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio. Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added. The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Saturday sought an explanation from jail authorities for failing to produce human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, despite a court order directing their appearance in a case related to the removal of security barriers erected for the English cricket team. The couple were indicted by the ATC on Tuesday in the case. Both opposed the framing of charges, arguing that they had not been provided copies of the case record or allowed to meet their lawyers. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra was hearing the case in which the couple have challenged the framing of terrorism charges. Neither accused was initially produced before the court, and no representative of the jail administration appeared to explain their absence. The judge directed prosecution and police officials to contact the jail authorities by telephone to ascertain the reason for their non-production. He also ordered the submission of a written explanation via WhatsApp by 11am. Advocate Aimal Khan requested the court to ensure the personal appearance of both accused, pointing out that an earlier order had directed the authorities to produce them either physically or through a video link. The couple were subsequently produced before the court through a video link. Dr Shireen Mazari also appeared, along with lawyers Zainab Janjua and Aimal Khan. At the outset of the hearing, Judge Sipra inquired about photographs taken during the previous proceedings and imposed a ban on mobile phones inside the courtroom. The restriction was later lifted following a request by court reporters. Advocate Zainab Janjua informed the court that the accused had challenged the framing of charges before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), where their petition was scheduled to be heard on Monday. She requested the trial court to defer proceedings until the high court considered their challenge. “What does it matter? If the framing of charges is set aside, the entire proceedings will come to an end,” Judge Sipra remarked, observing that the challenge before the high court did not automatically prevent the trial court from proceeding. The judge also questioned why the trial had stalled at this stage, noting that superior courts had already dealt with related matters and that a show-cause notice had previously been issued. Janjua questioned the repeated failure of jail authorities to produce the accused despite standard operating procedures governing their appearance. She also sought an adjournment, saying senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was unavailable. During the video-link hearing, Chattha told the court that he and his wife respected the judge and had regularly appeared before him. Referring to the principle of a fair trial, he said they had learnt from the judge that judicial proceedings could not be conducted without due process. “Why are we not being produced before the court?” he asked, questioning how their right to a fair trial under Article 10 of the Constitution was being protected. He also referred to newspaper reports stating that charges had been framed against them. Judge Sipra asked whether the couple had challenged the framing of charges, observing that the high court could set them aside if they had not been framed in accordance with the law. The judge also directed a prison official to arrange chairs for the accused during their video-link appearance and questioned why they had not been brought to court physically as ordered. He directed the relevant authorities to submit a written explanation by 11am regarding the failure to produce the couple. The court adjourned the proceedings pending the submission of the report by the jail administration. When the hearing resumed, the court disposed of the petition seeking to drop the terrorism charges, saying that this was not an appropriate stage to grant the relief sought without hearing arguments from the lawyers representing the two accused, whose counsel had boycotted the proceedings. During the proceedings, the court noted that, according to the report submitted by the jail authorities following the adjournment, the Islamabad Police had failed to provide an escort to bring Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha to court. The court observed that the two accused could not be brought to court because the police had failed to provide the required security. Advocate Janjua said the state was acknowledging that the accused had not been brought to court owing to its own failure to provide an escort. “On the one hand, the state is asking the court to record the witnesses’ statements today, while, on the other, the same state is failing to provide security for Imaan and Hadi to appear before the court,” she remarked. She maintained that the failure to ensure their appearance was undermining the accused’s right to a fair trial. Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial. Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case pertaining to controversial social media posts. The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts. On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision. However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand. The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio. Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added. The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).