A state counsel for Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha was appointed on Wednesday by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on behalf of the defence, after the couple’s lawyers did not proceed with the exercise. Advocate Taimur Janjua has been directed to appear at the next hearing, which was adjourned until Thursday, October 22, according to Dawn.
What Happened at the Hearing
The case is being heard at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail, where ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra is presiding over a jail trial. Advocate Aimal Khan Mandokhail appeared for the two lawyers and requested an adjournment, telling the court that senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was absent. The court declined the request, observing that the prosecution witnesses were present and could be cross-examined by the defence. In the words reported by Dawn, the judge told the defence to proceed because the witnesses were in court.
When Mandokhail said that senior counsel was not present, the judge observed that the accused are lawyers themselves and could conduct the cross-examination in their own case if they wished, Dawn reported.
Why the Court Named a State Counsel for Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha
The written order recorded that it had been made crystal clear at the previous hearing that the accused should ensure the presence of their lawyers for cross-examination. It stated that the defence was reluctant, and in fact refused, to cross-examine the witnesses, and that the two accused, being advocates, had also declined to do so. In view of that, the order said, the court had no option but to appoint a state counsel on behalf of the accused at state expense, as provided in law.
The court selected Janjua from a list of five lawyers provided by the Islamabad Advocate General. A state counsel is a lawyer assigned and paid by the state to represent an accused person who is not otherwise represented effectively in the proceedings.
The Allegations in the Security Breach Case
The security breach case concerns the alleged disruption of a security route for an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest in 2024. Mazari and Chattha are accused of removing barriers from the route. The case was registered at Islamabad’s Aabpara police station, and the court framed charges on October 7, according to Geo and Dawn. On that day, the defence objected that the couple had not yet received copies of the case documents. The Islamabad High Court has also taken up appeals against the ATC’s rejection of their petitions challenging the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism provisions, Dawn reported.
A Familiar Name in an Earlier Case
The appointment carries some history. Dawn reported that Janjua was previously appointed to represent the couple in a separate case over social media posts, a move to which they had objected. In November, he appeared in an Islamabad court instead of Advocate Shakeel Jatt, who had been the state counsel initially appointed and who had refused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, saying he could not ask questions dictated to him. In December, Chattha informed the court that a no-confidence application had been filed against Janjua.
The Wider Legal Picture
The couple has been in jail since their arrest on January 23 in a case over a protest outside the Islamabad High Court, Dawn reported. A day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act in the social media posts case. The convictions drew criticism from lawyers and United Nations experts. On September 17, the Supreme Court suspended the sentences and ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s decision on their appeals. Hours later, the police arrested them again in another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.
What to Watch
The next hearing will show whether the state counsel proceeds with the cross-examination and whether the defence accepts or challenges his role. The couple’s position on the appointment had not been reported at the time of writing. The case turns on a procedural question that courts regularly face: how to keep a trial moving when the defence declines to participate, while preserving the right of the accused to a fair trial.
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
Read More:
