Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, approached the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that declined to suspend proceedings against them in a case involving an alleged breach of security arrangements for an international cricket team.
The couple, who are currently incarcerated, filed separate but nearly identical petitions through senior lawyer Faisal Siddiqui, seeking to overturn the IHC’s October 19 decision refusing interim relief against their ongoing trial before an anti-terrorism court (ATC).
The case concerns allegations that the couple removed barriers from a designated security route for an international cricket team and engaged in activities intended to incite public unrest. Both were formally indicted on October 7.
Earlier, the ATC had dismissed their applications challenging the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions on October 10.
The couple subsequently appealed to the IHC, which heard the matter on October 19 and issued notices to the relevant parties. However, the high court declined to halt the trial pending further proceedings.
In their petitions before the Supreme Court, Imaan and Hadi alleged that the trial court had proceeded with unusual haste, recording the examination-in-chief of six prosecution witnesses on October 10 and 14.
They also challenged the decision to move the proceedings to jail, which they said had been approved following a prosecution request. The petitions further raised objections to the appointment of state counsel by the trial court.
The couple alleged that the proceedings were intended to undermine an earlier Supreme Court order suspending their 17-year prison sentences in a separate case involving controversial social media posts.
According to the petitions, the security breach case had resurfaced under questionable circumstances and was being pursued to prevent their eventual release.
Imaan’s petition argued that the IHC had “erroneously refused to exercise its discretion to grant ad interim relief to stay the criminal trial, despite multiple factual and legal reasons warranting such relief and repeated requests”.
The plea maintained that established legal principles required courts to consider interim protection where a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner and denial of relief could cause irreparable harm.
It argued that evidence had been recorded in the couple’s absence, allegedly violating Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, as well as constitutional protections relating to due process and a fair trial.
The petition further contended that temporarily suspending the proceedings would not cause significant prejudice to the prosecution, whereas allowing the trial to continue could seriously affect the petitioner’s liberty and legal rights.
It also maintained that the trial court had not formally exempted Imaan from personal attendance during the recording of evidence.
Additionally, the plea referred to Section 540-A of the CrPC, arguing that the relevant procedural requirements had not been followed.
The petitioners described the IHC’s refusal to grant interim relief as unlawful and sought to have its October 19 order set aside.
The Supreme Court has now been asked to examine the legality of the high court’s decision and the procedural objections raised against the ongoing anti-terrorism court proceedings.