Islamabad ATC ends contempt proceedings as Imaan, Hadi sign powers of attorney for litigation

Fixes Oct 6 for indictment of accused; another ATC issues notices on bail pleas of the two

ISLAMABAD:

An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad on Tuesday ended contempt of court proceedings against the Adiala jail authorities after being informed that the two accused, Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, had signed their power of attorney for litigation. In another case filed before the ATC, the court ordered notices on the bail applications filed by Imaan and Chattha and directed them to present arguments on October 5.

ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra heard the arguments on the application filed against Adiala jail authorities, with Riasat Ali Azad and other lawyers appearing on behalf of Imaan and Chattha. The court ended contempt proceedings against the jail authorities after being informed that the two accused had signed their power of attorney documents.

Judge Sipra directed the jail superintendent to formulate rules governing the process for signing such documents.

“If this is happening with lawyers, one can only imagine what happens to ordinary litigants seeking to sign power of attorney documents,” the judge remarked.

Read: ATC orders Imaan, husband's video-link appearance

Advocate Zainab informed the court that the Islamabad High Court had already formulated standard operating procedures (SOPs) in this regard. She urged jail authorities not to turn procedural requirements into a form of punishment.

Judge Sipra observed that, in the past, people had been required to obtain signatures on power of attorney documents either at the court lock-up or inside prison vans.

“The first step towards accessing justice begins with the signing of a power of attorney,” the judge remarked.

Following the signing of the documents, the court consigned Mazari and Chattha’s application to the record.

Furthermore, ATC Judge Sipra ordered the indictment of the two suspects, Imaan and Chattha, on October 6 in the case registered against them at the Kohsar Police Station, involving accusations of an altercation with police.

During the case proceedings, Imaan and Chattha appeared before the court via video link, while their lawyers, Riasat Ali Azad and Zainab Janjua, represented them.

During the hearing, copies of the charge sheet in the case were provided to the lawyers of Imaan and Chattha.

Separately, the ATC also issued notices on the bail applications filed by Imaan and Chattha and directed them to present arguments on October 5. ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain presided over the bail hearing.

On Friday, the ATC ordered that Imaan and Chattha be produced before the court through video link. ATC judge expressed displeasure over their absence and directed that both accused be produced before the court through video link.

Imaan, husband rearrested after SC bail

On September 17, the Supreme Court (SC) granted bail to both the lawyers and suspended a trial court’s February 19 decision in the social media posts case, saying the relief was being granted pending the final decision in the case before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Case background

The couple was arrested on January 23 near the underpass outside the Serena Hotel while travelling to the district courts, and later sent to 14 days’ judicial remand by an anti-terrorism court.

A district and sessions court later sentenced both to a combined 17 years’ rigorous imprisonment each: five years under PECA Section 9 (plus a Rs5 million fine), 10 years under Section 10 (plus Rs30 million), and two years under Section 26-A (plus Rs1 million), with additional jail time in case of non-payment of fines. The judge also acquitted them of the PECA hate-speech charge under Section 11, saying prosecution witnesses did not support that allegation.

During proceedings conducted via video link, Imaan alleged mistreatment in custody and announced a boycott of the hearing. The judgment noted the pair were already in custody in another case and said they would remain in jail to serve their sentences, with credit for time spent in detention under Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In March, Imaan approached the SC seeking suspension of her sentence, moving the apex court after the IHC did not list her application for hearing. Filed through Siddiqi, the petition stated that despite her counsel's request to suspend the trial court's judgment, the IHC only issued notices on the suspension application on February 19, and that it did not suspend the petitioner's sentence.

Further, the petition argued that the trial court's order was completely illegal and clearly mala fide, as it violated due process requirements under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, breaching mandatory provisions of Sections 233, 234, 353, 367, and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

In June, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) challenged the SC's earlier order directing the IHC to decide the couple's suspension applications within a specified timeframe. In its petition, the NCCIA contended that the SC cannot interfere in matters that are already pending before a High Court.

The application stated that in its May 12 order, the apex court had issued certain directions to the high court, whereas the authority to decide an application for suspension of sentence rested with the concerned high court, which was required to hear all parties and decide the matter in accordance with law.

On July 17, the IHC fixed July 24 as the date for hearing applications seeking the suspension of sentences. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also scheduled the hearing on sentence suspension applications for July 21, ahead of the IHC proceedings.

On July 21, the SC adjourned the hearing after hearing arguments over whether parallel proceedings before the IHC should continue.

Siddiqi argued that the matter had been listed before the high court because proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Mazhar rejected the suggestion that the Supreme Court should delay its proceedings because of the high court case, observing, "We cannot sit in the Supreme Court and regulate proceedings before the High Court."

On July 24, the IHC reserved its decision on the maintainability of applications seeking the suspension of sentences. The court observed that it would first decide the prosecution's objection regarding the maintainability of the applications before proceeding further.