By Asif Naveed
ISLAMABAD (MNN); An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Thursday directed lawyers and prosecution witnesses in the case against incarcerated lawyer and rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to appear at Adiala Jail for the next hearing after police cited logistical and security constraints in transporting the accused to court and proposed holding their trial inside the prison.
ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra also directed the Adiala Jail superintendent to ensure that Imaan could meet her counsel privately in accordance with the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978. The order followed the submission of an affidavit by the defence detailing alleged restrictions and difficulties during a previous meeting between the lawyer and his client.
The case concerns allegations that Imaan and Hadi removed barriers along the security route of an international cricket team and incited public unrest. The couple was indicted in the case on October 7.
Their legal team has repeatedly sought access to the accused. On Wednesday, defence lawyers boycotted the proceedings after the judge decided to record prosecution witnesses’ statements despite their request to defer the process until they could consult their clients.
At Thursday’s hearing, defence counsel Aimal Khan Mandokhail submitted an affidavit describing the difficulties he allegedly encountered while meeting Imaan at Adiala Jail.
According to the affidavit, Mandokhail received a certified copy of the court order permitting the meeting at 2:52pm on Wednesday and reached the jail at 3:50pm. He presented the order to the deputy superintendent and requested a private meeting in accordance with prison rules and the court’s directions.
The lawyer was allowed to meet Imaan at 4:45pm after waiting for nearly an hour. However, the meeting reportedly took place in a conference room rather than a separate private room.
Mandokhail alleged that the confidentiality of the discussion could not be maintained because the conversation was being recorded. He also claimed that he was not permitted to take case documents into the meeting or hand them over to his client.
The affidavit further stated that two female constables remained with Imaan, the door was left open, and male staff stood outside, enabling jail personnel to overhear the conversation. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:10pm.
During the meeting, Imaan and Hadi reportedly clarified that they were not boycotting the trial. They expressed their preference to appear before the court in person, citing difficulties in following proceedings and consulting their lawyers through video links because of audio and internet problems. They also asked their counsel to challenge the orders requiring them to attend proceedings remotely.
Defence lawyer Riasat Ali Azad told the court that Mandokhail had not been allowed to take the case record into the meeting. Mandokhail maintained that although the meeting took place, an effective discussion of the case was not possible.
Judge Sipra questioned jail authorities over the failure to produce the accused before the court and asked whether a report had been submitted explaining the situation. He directed that the SSP (Headquarters) be summoned if no report was available, briefly adjourning proceedings until 11am.
Police propose trial inside jail
When the hearing resumed, the judge directed SP (Headquarters) Pari Gul to appear within 15 minutes.
The court was informed that jail authorities had formally requested a vehicle to transport Imaan and Hadi to court, but Islamabad police responded that they lacked both the required vehicle and three constables to accompany the couple.
SP Gul subsequently explained that a substantial police contingent had been deployed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and suggested conducting the trial at Adiala Jail.
The court was told that the SP’s office had submitted a request for a jail trial, although no final decision had been made. Gul sought two to three hours to provide an update, while state counsel Ali Azad urged the court to fix the next hearing.
Judge Sipra expressed displeasure over the police response, observing that he had repeatedly ordered the accused to be produced before the court and that the police could have raised the issue earlier. He said he wanted a clear explanation of the police’s actions, which he believed had significantly altered the course of the proceedings.
Azad argued that accused persons should ordinarily be produced before the court for hearings. He questioned why bringing Imaan and Hadi to court was being presented as such a challenge and asked how the trial could proceed effectively in their absence. He also requested that the recording of proceedings not continue under the circumstances.
Imaan’s mother, former human rights minister Shireen Mazari, questioned the authorities over the logistical explanation, recalling that her daughter and Hadi had previously been brought to court at 10pm, accompanied by 12 vehicles.
Imaan and Hadi subsequently joined the proceedings through a video link, and Judge Sipra briefed them on the developments.
SP Gul said a formal notification concerning the jail trial would be issued the same day.
Hadi told the court that he had no objection to appearing in person or facing trial inside the jail. However, he stressed that lawyers and journalists should also be allowed to attend the proceedings held on the prison premises.
The court adjourned the hearing until Friday and directed lawyers and witnesses to appear at Adiala Jail for the next session.
Background: Rearrest following suspension of sentences
Imaan and Hadi have remained in custody since their arrest on January 23 in a separate case registered over a protest outside the Islamabad High Court and allegations of manhandling the IHC Bar Association president. Their arrest drew criticism from rights organisations, politicians and journalists, who raised concerns about their right to a fair trial.
A day after their arrest, a sessions court sentenced the couple 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 were widely criticised by lawyers and United Nations experts.
On September 17, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences and ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final decision on their appeals against the trial court’s verdict.
However, the relief proved short-lived. Hours after the Supreme Court’s order, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in another case and produced them before an anti-terrorism court, which remanded them to judicial custody.
The fresh case was registered at Kohsar Police Station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
The FIR accused the couple of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads. They were nominated by name, with charges initially registered under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to disobedience of lawful orders, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force against a public servant, and obstruction of a public servant performing official duties.
