ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Wednesday framed charges against lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha in a case related to the alleged disruption of an international cricket team’s security route.
ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra overruled objections raised by the defence and summoned prosecution witnesses on October 9. The case was registered at Aabpara Police Station and also includes allegations of incitement to public unrest.
Imaan and Hadi were produced before the court through video link.
Hadi objected that he had not been provided copies of the case documents, arguing that charges could not be framed until all legal requirements had been fulfilled.
Their counsel, Zainab Janjua, also told the court that neither accused had been given copies of the documents and that lawyers had not been allowed to meet them.
She argued that the court could not proceed with the indictment without completion of the required legal formalities.
The court, however, proceeded with framing the charges.
“You can challenge this order,” the judge told the defence counsel, directing that both accused be produced at the next hearing.
Former federal minister for human rights and Imaan’s mother, Shireen Mazari, alleged that the government was pursuing convictions against her daughter and son-in-law in successive cases to keep them in custody.
In a post on X, Mazari claimed that the pattern had emerged after the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in a social media posts case. She alleged that the government was seeking convictions in successive FIRs to keep the couple “illegally incarcerated”.
The indictment had originally been scheduled for Tuesday but proceedings were adjourned after Imaan and Hadi could not be produced due to a power outage at Adiala Jail that disrupted the video link.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Prosecutor Raja Naveed appeared before the court, while junior lawyers represented the accused as their lead counsel were engaged at the High Court.
The junior lawyers sought an adjournment, requested copies of the challan and complained that they were not being allowed to meet their clients.
The judge observed that copies of the challan had already been provided and said the court intended to frame charges that day. He also noted that signed powers of attorney had been received and said proceedings could not be conducted according to the convenience of lawyers.
After a brief adjournment, the video link remained unavailable. The judge directed jail authorities to ensure the accused were produced through video link at the next hearing and warned that contempt proceedings could be initiated in case of non-compliance.