An anti-terrorism court in Islamabad has sought a written explanation from jail authorities after human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, were not produced before the court despite an explicit order directing their appearance.
The couple face proceedings in a case concerning the removal of security barriers erected for the English cricket team.
Court Orders Written Explanation by 11am
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 jail authorities by telephone to determine why the couple had not been brought to court. He also ordered the submission of a written explanation through WhatsApp by 11am.
Advocate Aimal Khan requested the court to ensure the personal appearance of both accused, noting that an earlier order had directed the authorities to produce them either physically or through a video link.
The couple were subsequently presented before the court through a video link. Dr Shireen Mazari also appeared during the proceedings, along with lawyers Zainab Janjua and Aimal Khan.
Defence Challenges Framing of Charges
The couple were indicted by the ATC on Tuesday in the case. Both had opposed the framing of charges, arguing that they had not been provided with copies of the case record or allowed to meet their lawyers.
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 for hearing on Monday. She requested the trial court to defer further 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 continuing the proceedings.
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 the standard operating procedures governing their appearance. She also requested an adjournment, stating that senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was unavailable.
Accused Question Fair Trial Rights
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?” Chattha 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 despite the earlier order.
Police Blamed for Missing Escort
When the hearing resumed, the court disposed of the petition seeking the dropping of terrorism charges, observing that the requested relief could not be granted at that stage without hearing arguments from the lawyers representing the two accused, whose counsel had boycotted the proceedings.
During the hearing, the court noted that a report submitted by the jail authorities following the adjournment stated that 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 produced because the police had failed to provide the required security arrangements.
Advocate Janjua said the state was acknowledging that the accused had not been brought to court because of 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.
Background of the Case
The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on January 23 in a case registered over a protest outside the Islamabad High Court and allegations of manhandling the president of the IHC Bar Association.
Their arrest prompted criticism from rights organisations, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.
A day after their arrest, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years in prison on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case concerning controversial social media posts. The convictions drew widespread condemnation from lawyers and United Nations experts.
On September 17, following months of litigation, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case and ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.
However, the relief was short-lived. Hours after the Supreme Court’s order, Islamabad Police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an anti-terrorism court, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.
The fresh case was registered at the Kohsar police station in Islamabad 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 both were nominated by name in the first information report.
However, no provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act had been added to the FIR at the time of the case’s registration. The FIR included Section 188, relating to disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant; Section 341, concerning wrongful restraint; Section 506, dealing with punishment for criminal intimidation; Section 353, relating to assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from performing official duties; and Section 186, concerning obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of official duties.
