Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali accuse authorities of targeting them for human rights work

ISLAMABAD: Human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, have denied charges against them in a case involving the alleged removal of security barriers on a route designated for an international cricket team, accusing police and the prosecution of fabricating evidence and targeting them for their human rights work.

Earlier, the anti-terrorism court appointed a state counsel to represent Imaan Zainab Mazari and Chatta after their legal team refused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a high-profile security breach trial

In their separate statements recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the two accused challenged the prosecution’s account of the October 2024 incident, arguing that the temporary road closure was unlawful because police had no magistrate’s order authorising it.

Imaan said she was submitting her statement in protest, maintaining that she and her husband had been on their way to the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) when they encountered the road closure and sought permission to proceed after waiting for 15 minutes.

“The road does not belong to anyone personally,” she said, recounting her exchange with police officials over the closure.

She said police had informed them that the cricket team had already taken another route and questioned why the road remained blocked when, according to her, the police had acknowledged that the team was no longer using it.

Imaan argued that the closure violated citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of movement and said the prosecution had failed to produce a magistrate’s order authorising the restriction.

She also questioned why motorcyclists were allowed to pass through the area if removing the barriers posed a security threat.

The couple are facing trial over allegations that they removed security barriers placed in connection with the movement of an international cricket team on Faisal Avenue in Islamabad on October 25, 2024, and incited public unrest. They have denied the allegations.

Allegations of police violence

Imaan alleged that a police official, identified by her as Ibrahim, who was not wearing a uniform, threw an iron barrier at her, causing injuries. She said her husband had acted defensively to protect her from being assaulted and physically harmed.

She told the court that a medical report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) had been submitted as evidence. She also claimed there was no evidence on record that a police officer had been injured in the incident.

According to Imaan, a police official later apologised to her over the conduct of the police at the scene.

Hadi, in his statement, also alleged that a police officer struck his pregnant wife with an iron barrier and said he had intervened to protect her.

He said the PIMS medical record supported their account of the incident and the injuries sustained by Imaan.

Both accused accused the prosecution of withholding the original transcript of video footage, arguing that it contradicted police testimony and exposed inconsistencies in the case.

Imaan alleged that the prosecution had deliberately concealed the transcript because it would undermine its version of events. Hadi made a similar allegation, saying the footage contradicted the police account.

Challenge to evidence and investigation

The couple also questioned the handling of a USB device submitted as evidence, with Imaan describing it as unauthenticated and alleging that it had remained at a police station for several days without being sealed.

They further challenged the legality of the investigation, arguing that proceedings conducted after the Islamabad High Court suspended their judicial remand were unlawful. Hadi specifically questioned forensic examination of the USB device and voice-matching procedures.

The accused also objected to the prosecution’s witnesses, saying all were police officials and that no independent or private witness had been included.

The prosecution’s case rests on allegations concerning the removal of barriers and the resulting security risk. The couple, however, maintain that the evidence produced during the trial does not substantiate the charges against them.

Object to trial in a cage

Imaan and Hadi also challenged the manner in which their trial was conducted inside Adiala Jail, saying they were kept in a cage during proceedings and were denied an effective opportunity to communicate with their lawyers.

Hadi said the couple had challenged the arrangement before the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court, along with the recording of evidence in their absence and the appointment of a state counsel.

Imaan said they had been denied proper access to legal representation and described the proceedings as a violation of their right to a fair trial and due process.

The couple also referred to their arrest inside Adiala Jail on September 17, saying it took place after the Supreme Court had ordered their release. They alleged that they were subjected to violence before being arrested again.

Hadi said he and his wife had been kept in a cage during the jail trial.

Their statements describe the proceedings as part of a wider pattern of reprisals for their legal and human rights work, including the provision of free legal assistance to marginalised communities, street vendors, people accused in blasphemy cases and families of missing persons.

“We are innocent and prepared to make every sacrifice in the struggle for the rights of people,” Imaan said.

Hadi said he believed he was being punished for supporting his wife’s activism and for choosing to oppose what he described as injustice.

Verdict reserved

The ATC has reserved its verdict after concluding proceedings in the case, including the recording of the accused’s statements and final arguments by the state counsel.

The couple were indicted on October 7 in the case relating to the alleged disruption of the security route for an international cricket team. They have consistently denied the allegations and challenged the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in the case.

The defence has also contested the jail trial and sought relief from the higher courts. The court’s verdict is awaited.