Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, have rejected charges against them in a case over the alleged removal of security barriers on a road meant for an international cricket team. The couple say police and prosecutors fabricated evidence and singled them out because of their human rights work.
Both gave separate statements recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, the anti-terrorism court appointed a state counsel to represent them after their legal team refused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in the high-profile security breach trial.
Couple dispute the road closure and the October 2024 incident
The couple challenged the prosecution’s account of the October 2024 incident. They argued that the temporary closure of the road was unlawful because police had no magistrate’s order authorising it. Imaan said she was submitting her statement in protest.
Also read: Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha challenge IHC order in Supreme Court
She said the two were heading to the Anti-Terrorism Court when they reached the closure and waited about 15 minutes before asking permission to proceed. “The road does not belong to anyone personally,” she said, describing her exchange with officers. According to her, police told them the cricket team had already switched routes, yet the road stayed blocked.
Imaan argued that the closure violated citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of movement. She also asked why motorcyclists were permitted to pass through the area if removing the barriers posed a security threat. The couple face allegations that they removed barriers on Faisal Avenue in Islamabad on October 25, 2024, and incited public unrest. They deny the charges.
Claims of police violence and a withheld video transcript
Imaan alleged that a police official, whom she identified as Ibrahim and who was not in uniform, threw an iron barrier at her and caused injuries. She said her husband acted defensively to shield her from assault. She told the court that a medical report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) had been submitted as evidence, and she said the record contained no proof that any police officer had been hurt.
Imaan said a police official later apologised to her for how officers had behaved at the scene. Hadi, in his own statement, alleged that an officer struck his pregnant wife with an iron barrier and that he stepped in to protect her. He said the PIMS record backed their version of events and Imaan’s injuries.
Both accused the prosecution of withholding the original transcript of video footage. They argued that the transcript contradicted police testimony and exposed gaps in the case. Imaan alleged the prosecution had deliberately concealed it because it would weaken the state’s version, and Hadi made a similar claim that the footage contradicted the police account.
Challenges to evidence, witnesses and the jail trial
The couple questioned a USB device submitted as evidence. Imaan described it as unauthenticated and said it had sat at a police station for several days without being sealed. They also argued that proceedings held after the Islamabad High Court suspended their judicial remand were unlawful. Hadi specifically disputed the forensic examination of the device and the voice-matching procedures.
The accused also objected that every prosecution witness was a police official, with no independent or private witness included. The prosecution’s case rests on the removal of barriers and the security risk it allegedly created. The couple maintain that the evidence presented does not support the charges.
Imaan and Hadi also challenged the way the trial was run inside Adiala Jail. They said they were kept in a cage during proceedings and were denied an effective chance to speak with their lawyers. Hadi said they had raised the arrangement, the recording of evidence in their absence and the appointment of a state counsel before the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court. Imaan said the proceedings violated their right to a fair trial and due process.
The couple also pointed to their arrest inside Adiala Jail on September 17, which they said came after the Supreme Court had ordered their release. They alleged that they were subjected to violence before being arrested again. Their statements describe the case as part of a wider pattern of reprisals linked to their legal work, including free legal aid for marginalised communities, street vendors, people accused in blasphemy cases and families of missing persons.
“We are innocent and prepared to make every sacrifice in the struggle for the rights of people,” Imaan said. Hadi said he believed he was being punished for backing his wife’s activism and for opposing what he called injustice.
Anti-terrorism court reserves verdict
The anti-terrorism court has reserved its verdict after completing the proceedings, including the recording of the accused’s statements and final arguments from the state counsel. The couple were indicted on October 7 in the case concerning the alleged disruption of the security route for the international cricket team.
They have consistently denied the allegations and have challenged the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in the case. The defence has also contested the jail trial and sought relief from the higher courts. The court’s verdict is awaited.
