ISLAMABAD: An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Saturday disposed of a petition filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, through their counsel, seeking to strike down terrorism charges in a case registered against them over allegations of violating security protocols and assaulting police personnel.
ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra disposed of the petition, ruling that the plea challenging the invocation of terrorism provisions could not be heard at this stage.
The court disposed of the petition without hearing the defence lawyers, who boycotted the proceedings.
The judge remarked that he could not review his own order as he lacked the authority to do so.
The court also rejected the defence counsel’s request for an adjournment.
Defence counsel Zainab Janjua and Eimal Khan left the courtroom in protest.
Janjua informed the court that the Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) President Naeem Ali Gujjar was unwell and that Raja Ali Azad was with him.
Despite the court’s order to produce the couple physically, jail authorities presented them via video link.
The judge directed the prosecution to contact the Adiala Jail superintendent by telephone to ascertain why the accused had not been brought to court.
According to a report submitted by jail authorities, police had not provided the required escort to transport the accused from jail to court, preventing their physical production before the judge.
At the start of the hearing, the judge questioned the taking of photographs of the accused during previous proceedings and imposed a ban on mobile phones inside the courtroom.
However, he later lifted the ban following a request from media representatives.
During the hearing, Chattha told the court that he and his wife respected the judge and had regularly appeared before him.
He added that they had learnt from the judge that judicial proceedings could not be conducted without due process.
Following the defence lawyers’ boycott, the court proceeded with the trial in the absence of the accused and recorded statements from three prosecution witnesses.
They included the complainant named in the FIR, the police official who registered the case, and witnesses to the personal searches of the accused.
The court summoned additional prosecution witnesses to record their statements at the next hearing scheduled for October 12.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments