Court reserves verdict in Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha case until 1pm

An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad is set to announce its verdict in the case against human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha after both the prosecution and defence completed their final arguments at Adiala Jail on Thursday.

The case concerns allegations that the two lawyers removed security barriers and disrupted a designated route during the visit of an international cricket team. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra is hearing the proceedings.

During Thursday’s hearing, prosecutor Raja Naveed Hussain Kayani concluded his arguments, while defence counsel Aimal Khan Mandokhail submitted a written application requesting the court to defer the verdict until pending petitions before the Supreme Court and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) are decided.

Mandokhail argued that announcing the verdict before the higher courts considered the pending petitions would be legally inappropriate. He also informed the court that a separate application seeking the transfer of the case was pending before the IHC.

The court adjourned the proceedings until 1pm, when the verdict is scheduled to be announced.

The trial concluded on October 27, when both accused recorded their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The prosecution had also completed its final submissions, bringing the trial to the stage of a decision.

The court framed charges against Mazari and Chattha on October 7 and subsequently recorded statements from all seven prosecution witnesses. The proceedings were later shifted to Adiala Jail following disputes over the accused’s production before the court and access to them by their defence lawyers.

Earlier this week, the two lawyers approached the Supreme Court to challenge an Islamabad High Court decision concerning their request to suspend the trial proceedings.

In their petition, they argued that continuing the trial before the high court decided their pending application would render their legal challenge ineffective. They also alleged that the trial court had proceeded hastily, leaving them insufficient time to prepare their defence, and recorded the prosecution witnesses’ statements in a single day.

The petition further maintained that removing security barriers did not amount to terrorism. The applicants alleged that the case was intended to harass them and subject them to political victimisation, with the ultimate aim of keeping them in custody.