Pakistan court to deliver verdict in barrier removal case against Imaan Mazari and husband

An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) judge arrived at Central Jail Rawalpindi (Adiala Jail) on Thursday morning, October 29, to deliver the judgment in the case involving human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, over the alleged removal of security barriers and interference in official duties.

Who attended jail court proceedings for the verdict announcement?

ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Supra reached the high-security facility ahead of the scheduled announcement in the presence of the accused. Former federal human rights minister Dr. Shireen Mazari—Imaan's mother—alongside defense counsel Eamil Khan Mandokhail, prosecutor Raja Naveed Hussain, and court administrative staff also arrived at the jail premises for the proceedings.

The delivery of the verdict marks the culmination of an expedited trial held inside the prison complex, where the special court concluded the recording of witness statements, cross-examinations, and final arguments earlier in the week before reserving its decision.

What are origins of the security barricade charges?

The case stems from an altercation in Islamabad during the movement of the visiting England cricket team. According to police reports, the couple was accused of forcefully dismantling security barriers and scuffling with traffic and police personnel deployed to manage the international team's movement corridor.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Islamabad’s Aabpara police station under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) alongside multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) and Section 186 (obstructing a public servant). State prosecutors maintained that the disruption breached a sensitive security perimeter during a high-profile international sporting event, creating a security hazard along the designated VIP corridor.

How did defense counter terrorism charges?

Throughout the trial, the defense team rejected the terrorism and state obstruction charges, arguing that the confrontation was a localized dispute stemming from arbitrary road closures that caused severe public gridlock and prevented legal practitioners from reaching judicial courts.

Counsel argued that neither accused was armed nor associated with any unlawful assembly, maintaining that elevating a civic traffic dispute into an anti-terrorism prosecution constituted an abuse of state authority and political harassment aimed at penalizing the couple's human rights advocacy.

The defense had previously sought to restrain the delivery of the final judgment through appeals before superior courts, citing procedural defects during the framing of charges.