ISLAMABAD(National Times)- While offering yet another opportunity to human rights lawyer Imaan Zainab Hazir-Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chattha to record their statements in a security breach case, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Saturday warned them that a verdict could come even without their testimony if they refused.
ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, who conducted the proceedings at Adiala jail, issued the warning after both accused declined to record their statements under Section 342 (power to examine the accused) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during Saturday’s hearing.
The judge directed the couple to record their statements at the next hearing and adjourned the case until Monday, Oct 26.
During Saturday’s proceedings, Hadi requested the court, “Let the state counsel record the statement under Section 342 on our behalf.”
However, the judge replied that recording statements under Section 342 was a matter between the court and the accused, adding that they would have to respond themselves. “We will not record the statement under Section 342,” Ms Mazari stated.
The judge warned that if the accused did not comply, the court would mention in its order that no response had been submitted.
Ms Mazari and Mr Chattha 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.
At the last hearing, a state-appointed counsel had cross-examined all prosecution witnesses. The court appointed Atif Mehmood as the state counsel to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, replacing Taimoor Janjua, who was dismissed from the case over his past conduct.
The court had ruled to appoint the state attorney after the defence counsel failed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
Separately, the defence filed an application requesting the trial court to refrain from delivering a final judgement until the Islamabad High Court decided a petition seeking the transfer of the case to another court.
The application stated that the transfer petition was already pending before the IHC and requested that this development be made part of the trial court’s judicial record.
The defence also pointed out that the appointment of the state counsel had been challenged before the IHC. The application urged the trial court to defer its final decision until the high court ruled on the transfer petition.
