Lawyer claims witness statements were made outside courtroom, violating fair trial requirements
Lawyer Imaan Mazari. Photo:X
Lawyer Ali Azad, representing lawyer duo Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha, said “the trial court is not conducting a transparent trial.” The hearing on Monday was on a petition challenging the trial court order filed by the couple in the controversial tweets case in the Islamabad High Court.
The court asked whether all the lawyers present were in favor of this particular case, to which Ali Azad responded in the affirmative, saying: “This is a very important case.”
Justice Azam Khan presided over the case in the presence of Islamabad Bar Council members Raja Aleem Abbasi and Zafar Khokhar, who were also present, and advocate Ali Azad representing the state. Many bars and lawyers were present.
The court ordered defense lawyer Ali Azad to first consider the objections.
Lawyer Ali Azad expressed concern that the trial was not proceeding transparently. He said if there were multiple defendants, the trial could continue if one of them had an exemption.
Ali Azad stressed, “A fair trial is my constitutional right. Statements of witnesses must be recorded in my presence. The trial court is not conducting a transparent trial. This is one of the many cases pending before this court. These are members of the bar and professional lawyers.”
When the court asked him about the proceedings on November 24, Hadi Ali Chattha said they had filed an application to record witness statements in their presence, which was rejected.
Read: Imaan Mazari opposes prosecutor’s withdrawal from tweets case
Justice Azam Khan asked questions about the cross-examination of the five witnesses. Ali Azad said the hearing took place outside the courtroom, which violates the basic requirements of a fair trial.
Lawyer Zafar Khokhar explained that the trial can continue with a permanent exemption, but not with a one-day exemption, because the litigant is designated and must be present. Justice Azam Khan asked the lawyers to cite the law supporting the one-day exemption limitation.
The lawyers asked the court to interrupt the trial proceedings. Justice Azam Khan remarked: “We will look into this and pass an order accordingly. »
The court adjourned the matter for further hearing.
Learn more: Repeated postponements of the Imaan and Hadi trials
Mazari and her husband, Chattha, have already raised objections after their state-appointed attorney withdrew from the controversial case.
The National Cybercrime Investigation Agency filed a case against Mazari and Chattha; both are accused of posting “anti-state” remarks on X. The couple was formally charged on October 30, a day after Chattha was arrested outside the courtroom for failing to appear. Mazari argued that video footage showed him “inside and outside the courtroom.”
After his release, Chattha told reporters that he had arrived five minutes early for the Oct. 29 proceeding, but the judge had issued an arrest warrant “in front of him.”
Before Tuesday’s hearing, Mazari also claimed that the court had “forcibly appointed a prosecutor for her and Chattha.”
