A high-profile legal battle has reached Pakistan's highest court as a lawyer couple challenges the proceedings of their ongoing trial. According to Geo News, human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court through Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, seeking to set aside an Islamabad High Court order dated October 19.
Geo News reported that the couple's appeal targets the high court's decision to turn down their plea for interim relief in the security breach case. The case was originally registered at the Aabpara Police Station, stemming from allegations that the couple posed a security risk by interfering in state affairs during the visit of an international cricket team in October 2024.
According to Geo News, an anti-terrorism court in Islamabad indicted Mazari and Chattha earlier this month despite objections from the accused that they had not yet received copies of the case documents. The petitioners maintained in the Supreme Court that statements of two prosecution witnesses were recorded without giving the defence an opportunity to cross-examine them, and they have asked the apex court to restrain the trial court from proceeding further.
Background
According to Geo News, the legal proceedings have involved multiple judicial forums in Islamabad. Alongside their Supreme Court appeal, an Islamabad High Court bench comprising Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the couple's separate challenge against the decision to conduct a jail trial and the appointment of a state counsel.
During that hearing, petitioners' counsel Advocates Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua questioned the legal authority behind initiating a jail trial without hearing the accused beforehand. They argued that while the summary originated from Islamabad's senior superintendent of police and received final approval from the chief commissioner, the proper authority to initiate such a process rests with the federal government.
Geo News reported that Justice Minhas raised questions regarding the concept of an open court and authority over trial locations, while Advocate Azad noted that journalists and members of the public could not attend proceedings inside a jail. Defence counsel also noted that the offences are bailable and questioned the inclusion of a terrorism charge in the case.
Why it matters
For ordinary observers and legal practitioners in Pakistan, the proceedings highlight ongoing debates surrounding open court access, trial procedures, and the protocols for conducting judicial hearings inside correctional facilities. The case brings public attention to the intersection of security measures, criminal procedure, and the rights of the defence in high-profile matters.