ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court on Thursday directed the counsels and witnesses in a case against incarcerated rights activist and lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, to appear at the Adiala jail for the next hearing after police suggested a jail trial citing limitations in transporting the accused to the court.

The court also directed the Adiala jail superintendent to arrange a meeting between Imaan and her counsel in accordance with the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, after the defence submitted an affidavit detailing alleged difficulties faced at a previous meeting.

The instructions came from ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, who was presiding over the proceedings of a case that pertains to the alleged disruption of a security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest. Imaan and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, have been accused of removing barriers from the route. The couple was indicted in the case on Oct 7.

The lawyers representing them have been seeking a meeting with them, and they boycotted the proceedings at the previous hearing on Wednesday after the judge decided to record the prosecution witnesses’ statements despite the defence’s request to defer the exercise until they could meet the accused.

At the outset of Thursday’s hearing, defence counsels Aimal Khan Mandokhail and Riasat Ali Azad appeared before the court, with the former submitting an affidavit detailing the alleged difficulties he faced while meeting his client, Imaan, at the Adiala jail.

The affidavit stated that the lawyer had received a certified copy of the court order regarding a meeting with his client at 2:52pm and reached the jail at 3:50pm on Wednesday.

Mandokhail stated in the affidavit that he presented the order to the Adiala jail’s deputy superintendent and sought a private meeting with his client in line with the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 and the court’s directives.

He was allowed to meet the accused at 4:45pm after a wait of nearly an hour, the affidavit said, adding that the meeting took place in a conference room instead of a separate private room.

“The confidentiality of the conversation could not be maintained as everything was being recorded,” he stated.

The affidavit further said that Mandokhail had brought copies of case documents for his clients but was not allowed to take them inside or hand them over to the accused.

Two female constables remained with Imaan, the door was left open and male staff stood outside, allowing jail personnel to “overhear” the conversation, it added.

The meeting continued until 5:10pm, according to the affidavit.

It said that during the discussion, the accused clarified that they were not boycotting the trial. They expressed their desire to appear before the court in person, citing difficulties in following proceedings and consulting their lawyers over video link because of audio and internet issues. They also asked the counsel to challenge the court orders instructing that they join the proceedings via a video link.

Lawyer Riasat Ali Azad told the court that Mandokhail had not been allowed to take the case record into the meeting. Mandokhail said that although the meeting had taken place, an “effective discussion” on the case had not been possible.

Judge Sipra asked jail authorities why the accused had not been produced before the court and whether they had submitted a report in this regard.

He directed that the SSP (Headquarters) be summoned if no report was forthcoming, following which the hearing was briefly adjourned until 11am.

Police suggest jail trial

When proceedings resumed, the judge directed Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Pari Gul to appear before the court within 15 minutes, saying the officer should be informed that only a 15-minute window was available.

Before the official’s arrival, the court was informed that jail authorities had formally requested a vehicle to transport Imaan and Hadi to the court, but Islamabad police had responded that they lacked the required vehicle and three constables to accompany them.

Later, SP (Headquarters) explained that a large police contingent was deployed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. She suggested that Imaan and Hadi’s trial be held on jail premises.

The court was informed that the SP’s office had moved a request for a jail trial, but no final decision had been taken. Gul sought two to three hours to update the court while state counsel Ali Azad urged the judge to fix a date for the next hearing.

Judge Sipra observed that he had been repeatedly directing that the accused be produced before the court, adding that police could have made the request earlier. Expressing dismay over the police’s conduct, he said he wanted to know exactly what the police were doing as their “actions have completely altered the course of the matter”.

Lawyer Azad argued that police should produce accused persons in court daily.

“Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha are not terrorists that bringing them to court would pose significant challenges, and they could even arrive in a tonga,” he remarked. He questioned how a trial could proceed in the absence of the accused and requested that the proceedings not be recorded.

At this point, Imaan’s mother, former human rights minister Shireen Mazari, asked the authorities to explain how her daughter and Hadi were once brought to court at 10pm and 12 vehicles had arrived when they were presented before the court.

Subsequently, Imaan and Hadi appeared before the court via a video link, and Judge Sipra briefed them on the proceedings.

SP Gul said a formal notification regarding the jail trial would be issued the same day.

Hadi informed the court that he had no objection to appearing in person or undergoing a jail trial. However, he emphasised that lawyers and journalists should also be allowed to attend proceedings at the jail.

The court adjourned the hearing until Friday and directed the lawyers and witnesses to appear at the Adiala Jail for the next session.

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 Islamabad High Court 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 a case pertaining to controversial social media posts.

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).