Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chatha ask Supreme Court to suspend terrorism trial

Pakistani lawyers Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha have asked the Supreme Court to suspend their terrorism trial in Islamabad, challenging an Islamabad High Court ruling of October 19 that refused immediate interim relief.

They argue the proceedings are rushed and politically motivated, and that delay could render their pending plea ineffective.

What is the Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha terrorism trial about?

The trial concerns allegations that Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chatha removed barriers on the security route of an international cricket team in Islamabad in October 2024. Prosecutors say this created a security risk, and the case carries anti-terrorism provisions. The couple dispute the charges.

An anti-terrorism court indicted them on October 7. Prosecution witnesses’ statements were recorded in later hearings, and a state-appointed lawyer cross-examined the witnesses on October 23.

What did the couple argue before the Supreme Court?

In their petition, Mazari and Chatha asked for an immediate suspension of the trial. They argued that letting it continue would undermine their pending plea before the high court, which would be ineffective if relief came only after the proceedings had advanced further.

They alleged that the trial court acted hastily, recording prosecution witnesses’ statements in a single day without giving the defense adequate time to prepare. They also challenged the anti-terrorism provisions, arguing that removing security barriers did not constitute terrorism.

The petitioners further alleged that the proceedings were intended to harass them and amounted to political victimization. They claimed the objective was to keep them in custody.

What did the Islamabad High Court decide on October 19?

On October 19, the high court heard their appeals against the anti-terrorism court’s decision to reject their challenges to the framing of charges and the terrorism-related provisions. It declined to grant immediate interim relief but issued notices to the respondents. The question of suspending the trial was left to further proceedings.

The defense also challenged the procedure used to frame the charges. It argued that the accused had not received copies of the relevant case documents and had not been physically present when the indictment was recorded. The high court questioned whether physical presence was necessary when the accused had been connected through a video link, according to court reporting.