Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, lawyer Hadi Ali Chattha, took issue on Thursday following the apparent disappearance of the court-appointed lawyer representing them in the controversial social media posts case and the appointment of a new lawyer.
Justice Afzal Majoka, who has also been presiding over the proceedings in the case, was also apparently unaware of the finalization of the appointment of the new lawyer when lawyer Taimur Janjua appeared in the Islamabad district and sessions court in place of lawyer Shakeel Jatt.
Lawyer Jatt, who first attended the case hearing as Imaan and Hadi’s court-appointed defense attorney on Tuesday, had previously refused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, saying he could not “ask dictated questions.”
“I am in favor of a fair trial. I cannot ask dictated questions [to me]. “My conscience does not allow me to do so,” he had said, and the lawyer had stated, without giving specific details, that he had “received 15 questions with instructions to ask them during cross-examination.”
Lawyer Jatt had also asked the court for more time to prepare for the case, but Lawyer Janjua appeared at the hearing today to represent Imaan and Hadi.
When he informed the court that he had been appointed as the couple’s lawyer, Justice Majoka said the court had not yet received any notification in this regard.
A three-member prosecution team present at the hearing assured the court that relevant notice would be submitted.
For his part, Mazari objected to the change, questioning who had made the new appointment and through what process. He also expressed concern over the “disappearance” of lawyer Jatt.
Mazari maintained that neither she nor Chattha had expressed any lack of confidence in lawyer Jatt and asked the court to record their statements on the matter.
He further raised doubts over an application allegedly filed by lawyer Jatt for his removal as the duo’s lawyer. He further asked why the court had not objected to the disclosures made by lawyer Jatt in the previous hearing.
After the court provided a copy of lawyer Jatt’s application to Chattha, the latter requested the judge to summon the lawyer. He also maintained that the defense “had not rejected” the lawyer.
However, the prosecution opposed Chattha’s application, arguing that “while a sessions judge is the appropriate authority to summon a State-appointed lawyer, the court hearing the case is not the relevant forum for such action.”
The proceedings were suspended for a while after Mazari and Chattha asked for time to consult the newly appointed lawyer. Judge Majoka accepted their request and granted them time until 1:30 p.m.
That same day, the court had suspended the proceedings twice, first until 10:00 a.m. and then until 11:00 a.m., pending the appearance of the accused and a clarification regarding the appointment of a lawyer for them.
An order of the Islamabad West District Office and the Session Judge on the appointment, a copy of which is available with Sunrisestates: “Following the application filed by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Majoka, Additional Sessions Judge, Western Islamabad, for appointment of defense counsel, at State expense, for accused Hadi Ali Chattha and Imaan Zainab Mazari. […] Muhammad Taimoor Janjua is appointed defense attorney for state expenditure.”
The proceedings resumed after Mazari and Chattha met with lawyer Janjua. In a joint statement recorded in court, the couple claimed that the new lawyer was not following their instructions and that they did not trust him.
For his part, lawyer Janjua denied having forced them to follow his instructions, stating that he only acted on instructions from the court.
Chattha also moved an acquittal petition during the hearing, urging the court to hear his arguments before calling the witnesses for cross-examination.
In his arguments, Chattha maintained that the first information report (FIR) registered in the case before the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) was based on a “faulty source report”.
He alleged that the FIR was based on a source report that did not meet legal requirements, and that the screenshots presented by the prosecution as evidence were taken from different devices and then combined to form a single image.
No mobile device was seized and no verification was obtained from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, he argued.
Further, the FIR was registered 22 days after the date visible in the timestamps on the screenshots, he further alleged.
Chattha also read out the statement of complainant Shehroz Riaz before the court.
He maintained that the entire case was based on “just two Twitter accounts and a single report.” He claimed that the NCCIA procedure for registration of the FIR was not followed, and urged the court to accept his application for acquittal.
Following Chattha’s arguments, the prosecution said it would present its arguments on the acquittal request tomorrow.
Given this, Judge Majoka questioned the prosecution’s claim to have prepared written arguments, noting that no such presentation had been made.
The prosecution said it would present its argument at 8:30 a.m. the next day.
The case against Imaan and Chattha has been registered with the NCCIA on allegations of attempting to incite divisions on linguistic grounds through social media posts and creating an impression that the armed forces were involved in terrorism within the country in the case.
both were accused in the case on October 30, one day after the latter was arrested outside the courtroom for failure to appear. Mazari said there was video evidence of his presence both “inside and outside the courtroom.”
Speaking to reporters after his release, Chattha had maintained that he had appeared in court five minutes before the hearing on October 29, but that the judge had issued an arrest warrant “in his face.”
Before Tuesday’s hearing, Mazari had also alleged that the court had “forcibly appointed [a] state defense attorney” for her and Chattha.
