RAWALPINDI: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Thursday cancelled the appointment of state counsel Taimoor Janjua in a security breach case against lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha, after the accused objected to his past conduct in another case.
Imaan and her husband, Hadi, are facing a jail trial in a 2024 case pertaining to the alleged disruption of an international cricket team’s security route and incitement to public unrest.
The couple, accused of removing barriers from the route, was indicted on Oct 7. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra presides over the proceedings at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail.
Hearing the case on Thursday, Judge Sipra named Atif Mehmood as the replacement for Janjua, who was appointed as the state counsel just a day ago to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses after the lawyer couple’s counsel failed to do so during proceedings.
During the proceedings, Imaan told the court that Janjua had previously been appointed as state counsel in another case involving her, referring to the controversial social media posts case in which they were sentenced in January.
Hadi also raised objections to his conduct, alleging that the lawyer had told people that he had received Rs500,000 and completed cross-examination in a single day.
In response, Janjua challenged the allegation and retorted that the accused should accompany him to a private case outside the court to see whether he performed his professional duties properly.
The exchange prompted defence counsel Advocate Aimal Khan Mandokhail to question the state counsel’s role, asking him whether he was representing the accused or working against them.
The judge also expressed displeasure over Janjua’s conduct and questioned his manner of appearing before the court.
“Has no one ever taught you how to appear in court?” the judge asked the state counsel.
Then, Imaan informed the court that she and Hadi did not need a state counsel as they already had their own lawyers.
Hadi explained that their lawyers were frequently occupied with other cases at the Islamabad High Court (IHC), while the trial court had scheduled daily hearings at Adiala, making it difficult for them to attend every proceeding.
Meanwhile, no prosecution witness could be cross-examined during Thursday’s hearing amid the dispute over the state counsel’s appointment.
The court directed the prosecution witnesses to appear again on Friday and warned the accused that the cross-examination would proceed without further delay.
Addressing Imaan and Hadi, the judge directed them to ensure that their respective lawyers conducted the cross-examination at the next hearing. He added that if their lawyers failed to do so, newly appointed state counsel Mehmood would undertake the exercise.
The court adjourned further proceedings until 9am tomorrow (Friday).
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 an Islamabad district and sessions court during a November hearing after state-appointed Advocate Shakeel Jatt 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 IHC 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).