ATC summons DSP, threatens jail over missing record in Imaan, Hadi protest case

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad expressed severe displeasure over the failure to produce the case record in the protest case against lawyer and activist Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali, summoning a police officer in person and warning that he could be arrested for providing incorrect information.

ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain summoned DSP Legal Naeem Yousaf over the absence of the investigating officer and the non-production of the record. The hearing on the bail petitions of Mazari and Hadi was adjourned until Oct 13.

The judge objected when the DSP began addressing the court in English. “Speak to me in Urdu,” he told him.

The DSP told the court that, according to his information, the investigating officer was out of the city. He presented a printed copy of a WhatsApp message, which the judge rejected, ordering him to produce the original document.

The DSP later informed the court that the investigating officer was in Gilgit-Baltistan and had submitted a report to that effect. He said the officer’s phone was switched off and that it could take 10 to 15 days to establish contact with him.

The judge expressed anger over the explanation and said he did not accept verbal assurances.

Handcuffs brought into courtroom

At one point, the court had handcuffs brought into the courtroom and summoned the security in-charge. The judge directed the security official not to allow the DSP to leave the premises and told gate staff to stop him from going outside if ordered.

The judge warned that the DSP could be arrested for providing incorrect information. He also threatened to send him and the SP to jail for six months if no evidence was produced on the record.

“You should be ashamed. You have turned this into hooliganism,” the judge told the DSP.

The judge said the court was a force in itself and should have the authority to ensure immediate implementation of its orders. He said there should be a “judicial force” capable of enforcing court orders, adding that “the system of 1898 and 1860” appeared to still be in operation.

Defence questions absence

Defence lawyer Riasat Ali Azad argued that, apart from the terrorism provision, the case involved bailable offences, and that the court had already rejected the prosecution’s request for physical remand of Mazari and Hadi. He told the court it was a bail matter and there was no need to wait indefinitely for the record.

Questioning the investigating officer’s absence, he said: “Look at the bad faith; they have made a mockery of the courts.”

Another lawyer, Zafar Khokhar, said the investigating officer could not simply take the case record with him.

The court indicated that it would issue a detailed order, including on the investigating officer’s absence. Further hearing on the bail petitions of Mazari and Hadi was adjourned until Oct 13.