The Imaan Mazari case took a significant procedural turn on Saturday when an anti-terrorism court warned that it could proceed to a verdict even if the accused continued to decline to record their statements. The warning was issued to human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Hazir-Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, who are being tried in a security breach case. The court adjourned proceedings until Monday, Oct 26.
The Warning From the Bench
Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, who conducted the hearing at Adiala jail, issued the caution after both accused declined to record statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The provision, titled the power to examine the accused, allows a court to question a defendant about the evidence presented against them.
During the hearing, Mr Chattha asked the court to let the state counsel record the Section 342 statement on behalf of the couple. The judge replied that the exercise was a matter between the court and the accused, and that they would have to respond themselves. Ms Mazari then stated that they would not record the statement.
The judge warned that if the couple did not comply, the court would note in its order that no response had been submitted. The couple was directed to record their statements at the next hearing.
Background to the Security Breach Case
Ms Mazari and Mr Chattha are facing a jail trial over a 2024 case relating to the alleged disruption of an international cricket team’s security route and incitement to public unrest. The prosecution accuses the couple of removing barriers from the route. The pair was formally indicted on Oct 7.
The Imaan Mazari case has featured several disputes over legal representation. According to Dawn, the court appointed Atif Mehmood as state counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, replacing Taimoor Janjua, who was dismissed from the case over his past conduct. The court had ruled to appoint a state attorney after defence counsel failed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. At the previous hearing, the state-appointed counsel cross-examined all of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Defence Seeks a Delay Pending the High Court
Separately, the defence filed an application asking the trial court to refrain from delivering a final judgment until the Islamabad High Court decides a petition seeking the transfer of the case to another court. The application stated that the transfer petition was already pending and asked that this development be made part of the trial court’s record.
The defence also pointed out that the appointment of the state counsel had itself been challenged before the Islamabad High Court. On that basis, it urged the trial court to defer its final decision until the high court ruled on the transfer petition. Dawn’s report did not state how the court responded to the application.
Why the Section 342 Step Matters
The examination of the accused under Section 342 usually comes after the prosecution has presented its evidence. It gives defendants the opportunity to explain circumstances that appear against them. By repeatedly offering the couple that opportunity, the court appears to be ensuring that the record shows they were given a chance to respond before any judgment is delivered.
The judge’s warning also signals the direction in which the trial is moving. With the prosecution’s witnesses already cross-examined by state counsel, the proceedings are nearing the stage at which the court may consider final arguments and a judgment, unless the Islamabad High Court intervenes first.
What to Watch on Monday
Attention will now turn to the next hearing. The couple must decide whether to record statements, and the court will have to decide how to handle the defence’s request to hold off a verdict. The outcome of the transfer petition and the challenge to the state counsel’s appointment before the Islamabad High Court may also shape the schedule.
For now, the Imaan Mazari case remains at a critical procedural point. The accused have declined to record statements, the court has warned of the consequences, and key questions about representation and jurisdiction are awaiting decisions from a higher court.
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
