RAWALPINDI: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Thursday cancelled the appointment of state counsel Taimoor Janjua in a security breach case against lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha, after the accused objected to his past conduct in another case.

Imaan and her husband, Hadi, are facing a jail trial in a 2024 case pertaining to the alleged disruption of an international cricket team’s security route and incitement to public unrest.

The couple, accused of removing barriers from the route, was indicted on Oct 7. ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra presides over the proceedings at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail.

Hearing the case on Thursday, Judge Sipra named Atif Mehmood as the replacement for Janjua, who was appointed as the state counsel just a day ago to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses after the lawyer couple’s counsel failed to do so during proceedings.

During the proceedings, Imaan told the court that Janjua had previously been appointed as state counsel in another case involving her, referring to the controversial social media posts case in which they were sentenced in January.

Hadi also raised objections to his conduct, alleging that the lawyer had told people that he had received Rs500,000 and completed cross-examination in a single day.

In response, Janjua challenged the allegation and retorted that the accused should accompany him to a private case outside the court to see whether he performed his professional duties properly.

The exchange prompted defence counsel Advocate Aimal Khan Mandokhail to question the state counsel’s role, asking him whether he was representing the accused or working against them.

The judge also expressed displeasure over Janjua’s conduct and questioned his manner of appearing before the court.

“Has no one ever taught you how to appear in court?” the judge asked the state counsel.

Then, Imaan informed the court that she and Hadi did not need a state counsel as they already had their own lawyers.

Hadi explained that their lawyers were frequently occupied with other cases at the Islamabad High Court (IHC), while the trial court had scheduled daily hearings at Adiala, making it difficult for them to attend every proceeding.

Meanwhile, no prosecution witness could be cross-examined during Thursday’s hearing amid the dispute over the state counsel’s appointment.

The court directed the prosecution witnesses to appear again on Friday and warned the accused that the cross-examination would proceed without further delay.

Addressing Imaan and Hadi, the judge directed them to ensure that their respective lawyers conducted the cross-examination at the next hearing. He added that if their lawyers failed to do so, newly appointed state counsel Mehmood would undertake the exercise.

The court adjourned further proceedings until 9am tomorrow (Friday).

Advocate Janjua had previously been appointed to represent Imaan and Hadi in a controversial social media posts case — a development to which the couple had objected.

He had shown up in an Islamabad district and sessions court during a November hearing after state-appointed Advocate Shakeel Jatt refused to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses in the case, saying that he could not “ask questions dictated” to him.

At a December hearing, Hadi had informed the court that a no-confidence application had been filed against Advocate Janjua.

Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest

The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.

Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in the controversial social media posts case.

The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.

On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.

However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.

The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.

Imaan and Hadi were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added.

The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday issued notices to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the Ministry of Law and other respondents on a petition challenging the appointments of the bureau’s Deputy Chairman Ihtesham Qadir Shah and Prosecutor General Sohail Nasir, while directing the petitioner to produce documentary evidence that the two did not meet the legal requirements for their posts.

Justice Umair Majid Malik, who heard the petition filed by Advocate Dr G.M. Chaudhry, observed that the petitioner had “completely ruined the entire case” after he argued that Mr Nasir had improperly described himself as a former judge despite having served only as an additional judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

Justice Malik remarked with a smile, “In that case, you might as well remove our badges too, as we are also currently serving as additional judges.”

‘Lack qualifications’

In his petition, filed in the nature of quo warranto, Dr Chaudhry challenged the appointments of the NAB deputy chairman and prosecutor general, arguing that Mr Shah did not meet the qualifications prescribed under Section 7(aa) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

The petitioner contended that Mr Shah had previously served as NAB prosecutor general, a position that did not qualify him as a federal government officer in Grade 21 or its equivalent. He also argued that Mr Shah was neither an armed forces officer holding the rank of major general nor its equivalent.

Regarding Mr Nasir, the petitioner argued that he did not meet the criteria under Section 8(a) of the NAO, which requires a NAB prosecutor general to be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.

He said Mr Nasir had served as a sessions judge before being appointed an additional judge of the LHC, but was not confirmed. The petitioner maintained that he therefore did not meet the requirements under Article 177(2) of the Constitution.

Notices were also issued on miscellaneous applications seeking to restrain the NAB deputy chairman and prosecutor general from performing their duties and to summon the records of their appointments.

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2026

ISLAMABAD: An anti-terrorism court on Wednesday appointed a state counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses from the defence side in a security breach case against lawyers Imaan Zainab Hazir-Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha.

Advocate Taimur Janjua has been directed to be present at the next hearing as Imaan and Hadi’s lawyers failed cross-examine the witnesses during Wednesday’s proceedings in the case pertaining to the alleged disruption of a security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest in 2024.

Imaan and her husband, Hadi, have been accused of removing barriers from the route in the case, and the couple was indicted on Oct 7. They are facing a jail trial in the case, with ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra presiding over the proceedings at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail.

Advocate Aimal Khan Mandokhail appeared before the judge on behalf of Imaan and Hadi on Wednesday and requested an adjournment.

However, the court declined the request, observing that the prosecution witnesses were present at the hearing and the defence could cross-examine them.

“The witnesses are present; you may proceed with the cross-examination,” Judge Sipra said.

But, Advocate Mandokhail said senior counsel Riasat Ali Azad was not present and that he would cross-examine the witnesses.

The judge observed that the accused were lawyers themselves and could conduct the cross-examination in their own case if they wished.

Moreover, the court order stated that it was “made crystal clear” at the last hearing that the accused should ensure the presence of their lawyers for cross-examination.

“But the defence side is reluctant, rather refused to cross-examine. Both the accused are advocates themselves, and they have been asked to cross-examine the witnesses, but they have also refused to do so. In view of that, this court has no other option but to appoint a state counsel on behalf of the accused at the state expense as provided in law,” the order read.

The court appointed Janjua from a list of five lawyers provided by the Islamabad advocate general.

The hearing was adjourned till Oct 22 (Thursday).

Advocate Janjua had previously been appointed to represent Imaan and Hadi in a controversial social media posts case — a development to which the couple had objected.

He had shown up in the Islamabad district and sessions court during a November hearing instead of Advocate Shakeel Jatt, the state counsel who was initially appointed to represent the duo in the case.

That was after Advocate Jatt had refused to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses in the case, saying that he could not “ask questions dictated” to him.

At a December hearing, Hadi had informed the court that a no-confidence application had been filed against Advocate Janjua.

Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest

The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the Islamabad High Court and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.

Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in the controversial social media posts case.

The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.

On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the Islamabad High Court’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.

However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.

The fresh case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.

Imaan and Hadi were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added.

The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).

ISLAMABAD: A writ petition filed in the Islamabad High Court has challenged the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) April 28 decision that vacancies arising from the transfer of a judge “shall be filled through transfer only”, arguing that the three vacant judges’ seats in the IHC should be filled through fresh appointments under the Constitution rather than further transfers.

The petition, filed by Advocate Supreme Court Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi against the Federation of Pakistan, JCP, president and prime minister, contends that the impugned decision has no constitutional foundation and conflicts with Article 175A(8), which requires the commission to nominate one person “for each vacancy” of a high court judge. It argues that the Constitution recognises no category of high court vacancy exempt from this requirement and that the commission cannot create one through a resolution.

The petition contends that the JCP decision was taken in disregard of the procedure prescribed by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules 2024. It points out that Rule 11(2) requires the secretary to notify all members at least 14 days before a scheduled meeting, providing the agenda and supporting materials. According to the petition, the impugned decision was reportedly introduced during the proceedings rather than being included in the circulated agenda.

It further states that the JCP Rules, as notified, contain no provision for their amendment, while the only provision allowing the commission to remove difficulties — Rule 15 — requires the votes of at least two-thirds of its total membership. The impugned decision, however, records only a “majority of its total membership”.

The petition also questions the composition of the JCP when the decision was taken. It argues that the impugned decision governs future appointments to the IHC, yet it was taken at meetings convened to consider transfers, at which the commission sat under the first proviso to Article 200(1), with the chief justices of the high courts concerned in each transfer.

By contrast, the Constitution prescribes a distinct composition for the appointment of IHC judges under Article 175A(6). Besides the IHC chief justice, it includes the head of IHC’s constitutional benches, an advocate nominated by the Islamabad Bar Council and a federal minister nominated by the prime minister.

The petitioner submits that procedural and compositional defects reinforce the need for the IHC’s three vacancies, created by the transfers notified on April 29, 2026, to be filled through the constitutional process of fresh appointments. For this purpose, nominations should be invited from members of the commission under Article 175A(23) and Rule 9(1) of the JCP Rules, rather than through a transfer-only route.

The petition also challenges the decision on grounds of discrimination, retrospectivity and an unlawful fetter on discretion. It notes that in July 2026, the JCP filled vacancies in the Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court and Baloc­histan High Court through initial appointments, while the IHC’s vacancies have been reserved for transfers.

It emphasises that the IHC is currently functioning with a chief justice and nine judges against a sanctioned strength of a chief justice and 12 judges, and that the three vacancies have remained unfilled for more than five months.

Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application for interim relief, seeking to restrain the respondents from recommending, advising or notifying the transfer of any judge to the IHC against the three vacancies while the petition remains pending.

The petition seeks a declaration that the JCP’s decision is ultra vires Articles 4, 25, 175A and 193 of the Constitution and the JCP Rules, and is of no legal effect.

Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2026

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday took up appeals filed by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, against an anti-terrorism court (ATC) order rejecting their petitions challenging the framing of charges and the inclusion of terrorism-related provisions in the security breach case.

The case pertains to the alleged disruption of the security route of an international cricket team and incitement to public unrest.

A division bench comprising Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas and Justice Shahrukh Arjumand heard the matter on Monday, with Riasat Ali Azad, Zainab Janjua and other lawyers appearing before the court.

At the outset, Justice Minhas asked whether the accused had received copies of the relevant documents. Counsel Riasat Ali Azad replied in the negative and said he wanted to examine how the charges had been framed.

The counsel argued that the ATC had passed the impugned order without the requisite authority to do so. He said the case had remained pending before the court of Judge Abual Hasanat Mohammad Zulqarnain from March 12, 2025, until recently.

Citing the precedent in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, Azad argued that the court in which the challan was submitted was the one authorised to hear the case.

He further contended that the accused had not been provided with copies of the relevant documents and that the charges had not been read out in their presence, as they were not physically present in the courtroom at the time.

“Legal proceedings cannot move forward in the absence of the accused,” the counsel argued, adding that the charge must be framed in the presence of the accused. He also alleged a violation of a decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee.

Describing the charge as the foundation of a trial, Azad maintained that any defect in its framing would undermine the legality of the subsequent proceedings.

Justice Minhas asked whether the trial was being conducted through a video link. The counsel replied that the proceedings had initially taken place through a video link but had shifted to a jail trial at the most recent hearing.

The judge also inquired whose signatures appeared on the charge document. Azad said the document bore his signature, but lacked those of the accused, which, according to him, were legally required.

Justice Minhas questioned whether the proceedings could not be conducted through a video link, observing that the accused had been connected through the facility and that their attendance had been recorded when the charges were framed.

The counsel, however, insisted that the accused were not present when he signed the documents and requested the court to summon the video recording of the proceedings.

He also said the copies had not been delivered to the accused in jail and that an affidavit had been submitted to this effect.

Justice Minhas remarked that it appeared the defence had not intended to accept the copies. Azad responded that every application filed by the defence before the ATC had been rejected.

He said the defence had requested both the case record and the video recording of the proceedings.

The judge subsequently asked where it was stipulated that the accused must be physically produced for the framing of charges.

Azad reiterated that the appeals also challenged the inclusion of anti-terrorism provisions in the case and repeatedly urged the high court to halt the trial.

“We shall see; we will let you know,” Justice Minhas remarked.

Justice Minhas said the court would issue an order and inform the parties accordingly. He concluded that notices had been issued and the court would decide how to proceed once the responses were received.

ATC hearing adjourned

Meanwhile, ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra conducted the proceedings of the security breach case against Imaan and Hadi at the Adiala jail, where they are incarcerated.

Advocate Janjua, representing the accused, withdrew her vakalatnama (authorisation to represent them). Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned until 10am tomorrow (Tuesday).

No prosecution witnesses’ statements could be recorded during the hearing.

Imaan and Hadi were indicted in the case on Oct 7, when both accused were produced via video link. Hadi had objected to the framing of charges, arguing that he had not yet been provided copies of the case documents and that charges could not be framed before completion of all legal formalities.

Advocate Janjua also opposed the indictment, submitting that neither of them had been provided copies of the case record. She further contended that neither of the accused had been allowed to meet their lawyers, and therefore, the requirements for framing charges had not been fulfilled.

Imaan and Hadi’s rearrest

The lawyer couple has been in jail since their arrest on Jan 23 in a case registered against them for protesting outside the IHC and allegedly manhandling the IHC Bar Association (IHCBA) president. The arrest prompted criticism by rights bodies, politicians and journalists, who stressed the couple’s right to a fair trial.

Just a day later, a sessions court sentenced them to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in a case pertaining to controversial social media posts.

The convictions were widely condemned by lawyers and United Nations (UN) experts.

On Sept 17, following months of litigation before the courts, the Supreme Court suspended their sentences in the case. The SC ordered their release pending the IHC’s final verdict on their appeals against the trial court’s decision.

However, the reprieve was short-lived as hours later, Islamabad police arrested the couple again in connection with another case and produced them before an ATC, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.

The case in which the two were arrested was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22 last year on the complaint of City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.

Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were nominated by name in the FIR. However, at the time of registration of the case, no section of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) had been added.

The FIR included sections 188 (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their official duty) and 186 (obstructing a public servant in the performance of official duties).