Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chatha move Supreme Court against ATC trial

Human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chatha, have approached the Supreme Court challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision concerning their

ISLAMABAD: Human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chatha, have approached the Supreme Court challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision concerning their request to suspend proceedings in an anti-terrorism case.

In their petition, the lawyers argued that the trial should be halted immediately, warning that continuing the proceedings could render their pending application before the high court ineffective.

They alleged that the trial court had proceeded hastily without giving the defence sufficient time to prepare its case. According to the petition, statements from all prosecution witnesses were recorded in a single day, raising concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

The applicants also maintained that removing security barriers did not amount to terrorism. They alleged that the case was being used to harass them and subject them to political victimisation, with the intention of keeping them behind bars.

An Islamabad Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) framed charges against Imaan and Hadi on October 7 in a case involving the alleged removal of security barriers and disruption of a designated route during the visit of an international cricket team.

The trial court subsequently recorded statements from all seven prosecution witnesses, and the proceedings have now reached the cross-examination stage.

The trial was shifted to Adiala Jail following disputes over the accused’s appearance in court and defence lawyers’ access to their clients.

Separately, the couple had approached the IHC, seeking suspension of the trial on the grounds that legal procedures had allegedly not been followed during the framing of charges. They claimed they were not physically present when the charges were framed and had not received copies of relevant documents.

The high court heard their appeals on October 19 and indicated that it would issue an order after hearing the respondents. It declined to grant interim relief in their petitions seeking the removal of anti-terrorism provisions from the case but issued notices to the relevant parties on their separate plea seeking suspension of the trial.

In January, Imaan and Hadi were sentenced to a combined 17 years in prison in cases linked to their social media posts. The prosecution had argued that the posts promoted an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws. The couple subsequently filed applications seeking suspension of their sentences.

On September 17, they were arrested again shortly after the Supreme Court granted them bail and suspended their sentences in the social media cases. They were later produced before an Islamabad ATC in connection with a case registered at Kohsar Police Station.

Police requested 30 days of physical remand, but ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain rejected the request and sent the couple to judicial custody. The judge observed that although the couple had been nominated in the first information report as members of an unlawful assembly, no weapon had been attributed to either of them.

On September 27, the ATC issued a contempt notice to the superintendent of Adiala Jail after authorities allegedly failed to facilitate the signing and transmission of required documents and did not produce the accused through video link.

The issue was resolved two days later when Imaan and Hadi signed the necessary powers of attorney. On September 29, the ATC concluded the contempt proceedings against the jail authorities and confirmed that notices had been issued on the couple’s bail applications.

The court subsequently scheduled arguments on the bail pleas before Judge Abul Hasnat.

The latest petition before the Supreme Court challenges the continuation of the trial while the couple’s objections to the proceedings remain pending. The matter concerns the legality and fairness of the ongoing trial, including the defence’s allegations of procedural violations.