RAWALPINDI: Rights activist and lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, on Friday objected to the manner of their presentation during the hearing of the security breach case, with the couple and their lawyers eventually walking out of the proceedings at Adiala jail.
The defence counsel also filed an application seeking an end to the jail trial.
The case pertains to the alleged disruption of a security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest. Imaan and her husband have been accused of removing barriers from the route. The couple was indicted in the case on Oct 7.
A day earlier, at the police’s recommendation, citing limitations in transporting the accused to court, the court directed counsels and witnesses to appear at the Adiala jail for the next hearing.
On Friday, Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra conducted the hearing inside Adiala jail, where proceedings commenced at 10:55am, according to the defence counsel present inside the makeshift courtroom.
The accused were presented inside a dock located in a corner of the courtroom, prompting them to raise objections over the manner in which they were produced before the court.
“This is not the proper way to present someone in court,” Imaan said, adding that they were not being allowed to meet their lawyers. Hadi complained that the two were being treated worse than terrorists.
Judge Sipra, taking note of the police standing next to the accused, directed the personnel to move away and remarked: “They have been brought into the courtroom; what is the need for the police to stand right next to them?”
The defence counsel had also filed an application seeking an end to the jail trial and adjournment of the hearing on Friday.
After hearing arguments from the lawyers, the court announced a 20-minute recess. On the application filed by the defence, he said, “I have received your applications; I will issue an order regarding this.”
After the proceedings resumed, prosecution witness Ibrahim recorded his statement, while defence lawyer Aimal Khan Mandokhail urged the court to decide the application seeking adjournment before proceeding further.
“We have filed an application to adjourn the hearing; please rule on it,” he told the court. He also complained that other members of the defence legal team were not being allowed to enter the courtroom.
“If the proceedings continue in this manner, we cannot remain a part of them,” Mandokhail said.
He further urged the court to not defer the matter until the following day, referring to the pending bail proceedings.
Subsequently, Imaan, Hadi and their lawyers walked out of the courtroom.
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 a case pertaining to controversial social media posts.
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).