ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Wednesday formally framed charges against lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in a case concerning the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team. The court dismissed the defense’s objections that legal requirements for framing charges had not been fulfilled.
Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, presiding over the case, summoned prosecution witnesses to appear on October 9 and adjourned the hearing until then. The case was registered at Aabpara Police Station and also includes accusations of incitement to public unrest.
Imaan and Hadi appeared before the court via video link. Hadi raised an objection, stating he had not yet received copies of the case documents and argued that charges could not be framed without fulfilling all legal formalities. Their lawyer, Zainab Janjua, supported this claim, adding that neither accused had been provided with copies of the documents and that lawyers had been denied access to meet their clients.
Despite these objections, the court proceeded with the indictment. Judge Sipra informed the defense counsel that they could challenge the order if they wished and directed that both accused be produced at the next hearing.
Shireen Mazari, former Federal Minister for Human Rights and mother of Imaan Mazari, accused the government of aggressively pursuing convictions against the couple in multiple cases to keep them detained. She stated that since the Supreme Court suspended their sentence in a social media posts case, the authorities have been filing successive FIRs to maintain their custody illegally.
The indictment was initially scheduled for Tuesday but was delayed due to a power outage at Adiala Jail, which disrupted the video link required to produce the accused. During that hearing, prosecutor Raja Naveed appeared, while junior lawyers represented the accused as their lead counsel were occupied at the High Court. The juniors requested an adjournment and copies of the challan, also complaining about being denied access to their clients.
The judge noted that copies of the challan had already been provided and emphasized the court’s intention to frame charges that day. He confirmed receipt of signed powers of attorney and stated that proceedings could not be delayed for the convenience of lawyers. After a brief recess, the video link still failed, prompting the judge to instruct jail authorities to ensure the accused’s presence via video link at the next hearing. He warned that contempt proceedings would be initiated if the order was not complied with.
Leave an opinion