The issue was resolved two days later after Imaan and Hadi signed the required powers of attorney.

Human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chatha, approached the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision concerning their request to suspend trial proceedings in an anti-terrorism case.

In their petition, the applicants argued that unless the trial was immediately suspended, their pending application before the high court would become ineffective.

They alleged that the trial court had proceeded hastily without giving them adequate time to prepare their defence and recorded statements from all prosecution witnesses in a single day.

The petition further argued that removing security barriers did not amount to terrorism. The applicants alleged that the proceedings were intended to harass them, subject them to political victimisation and keep them behind bars.

ATC Trial Reaches Cross-Examination Stage

On October 7, the Islamabad Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) framed charges against Imaan and Hadi in a case concerning the alleged removal of security barriers and disruption of a designated route during the visit of an international cricket team.

The trial court subsequently recorded statements from all seven prosecution witnesses, and the proceedings have now reached the cross-examination stage.

The trial was shifted to Adiala Jail amid disputes over the accused’s production before the court and defence lawyers’ access to their clients.

The ATC had also directed jail authorities to facilitate meetings between the accused and their lawyers.

IHC Yet to Decide Plea to Suspend Trial

Separately, Imaan and Hadi approached the IHC seeking suspension of the trial, alleging procedural violations during the framing of charges.

They contended that they had not been physically present when the charges were framed and had not received copies of relevant documents.

The high court heard their petitions on October 19 and said it would issue an order after hearing the respondents.

However, the IHC dismissed their request for an interim order in petitions seeking the removal of anti-terrorism provisions from the case. It issued notices to the relevant parties on their separate plea seeking suspension of the trial proceedings.

Background: Previous Convictions and Rearrest

In January, Imaan and Hadi were sentenced to a combined 17 years in prison on multiple charges linked to controversial social media posts. The prosecution had argued that the posts promoted an anti-state narrative under cybercrime laws.

The couple subsequently filed applications seeking suspension of their sentences.

On September 17, they were rearrested shortly after the Supreme Court granted them bail and suspended their sentences in the social media case. They were then produced before an Islamabad ATC in connection with a separate case registered at Kohsar Police Station.

Police sought 30 days of physical remand, but ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain rejected the request and sent the couple on judicial remand.

The judge observed that although the couple had been nominated in the first information report as members of an unlawful assembly, no weapon had been attributed to either accused.

Dispute Over Access to Legal Documents

On September 27, the court issued a contempt notice to the Adiala jail superintendent after authorities allegedly failed to facilitate the signing and transmission of documents and produce the accused through video link.

The issue was resolved two days later after Imaan and Hadi signed the required powers of attorney.

On September 29, the ATC concluded the contempt proceedings against jail authorities. The court also confirmed that notices had been issued on the couple’s bail applications, with arguments scheduled before Judge Abul Hasnat.

On October 7, the ATC framed charges against the couple in the barricade-removal case despite defence objections that the necessary legal requirements had not been fulfilled.

The latest petition before the Supreme Court challenges the continuation of the trial while the couple’s application seeking its suspension remains pending before the IHC.