RAWALPINDI: An anti-terrorism court on Wednesday appointed a state counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses from the defence side in a security breach case against lawyers Imaan Zainab Hazir-Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha.
Advocate Taimur Janjua has been directed to be present at the next hearing as Imaan and Hadi’s lawyers failed cross-examine the witnesses during Wednesday’s proceedings in the case pertaining to the alleged disruption of a security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest in 2024.
Imaan and her husband, Hadi, have been accused of removing barriers from the route in the case, and the couple was indicted on Oct 7. They are facing a jail trial in the case, with ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra presiding over the proceedings at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail.
Advocate Aimal Khan Mandokhail appeared before the judge on behalf of Imaan and Hadi on Wednesday and requested an adjournment. However, the court declined the request, observing that the prosecution witnesses were present at the hearing and the defence could cross-examine them.
“The witnesses are present; you may proceed with the cross-examination,” Judge Sipra said.
But, Advocate Mandokhail said senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was not present and that he would cross-examine the witnesses.
The judge observed that the accused were lawyers themselves and could conduct the cross-examination in their own case if they wished.
Moreover, the court order stated that it was “made crystal clear” at the last hearing that the accused should ensure the presence of their lawyers for cross-examination.
“But the defence side is reluctant, rather refused to cross-examine. Both the accused are advocates themselves, and they have been asked to cross-examine the witnesses, but they have also refused to do so. In view of that, this court has no other option but to appoint a state counsel on behalf of the accused at the state expense as provided in law,” the order read.
The court appointed Janjua from a list of five lawyers provided by the Islamabad advocate general.
The hearing was adjourned till Oct 22 (Thursday).
Advocate Janjua had previously been appointed to represent Imaan and Hadi in a controversial social media posts case — a development to which the couple had objected.
He had shown up in the Islamabad district and sessions court during a November hearing instead of Advocate Shakeel Jatt, the state counsel who was initially appointed to represent the duo in the case.
That was after Advocate Jatt had refused to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses in the case, saying that he could not “ask questions dictated” to him.
At a December hearing, Hadi had informed the court that a no-confidence application had been filed against Advocate Janjua.
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 and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association 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 the controversial social media posts case.
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 Hadi 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).