Lawyer and rights activist Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her husband, Advocate Hadi Ali Chattha, on Thursday objected after the apparent vanishing act of the court-appointed lawyer representing them in the controversial social media posts case and the appointment of a new counsel. Judge Afzal Majoka, who has been presiding over the case’s proceedings, too, was also seemingly unaware of the finalisation of the appointment of the new counsel when Advocate Taimur Janjua showed up in the Islamabad district and sessions court instead of Advocate Shakeel Jatt.

Advocate Jatt, who attended the case’s hearing as Imaan and Hadi’s court-appointed defence counsel for the first time on Tuesday, had previously refused to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, saying that he could not “ask questions dictated” to him. “I am in favour of a fair trial. I cannot ask questions that are dictated [to me]. My conscience does not allow this,” he had said. The counsel had alleged without sharing any specific details that he had “received 15 questions with the instructions that he should ask them during the cross-examination”.

Advocate Jatt had also sought more time from the court to prepare for the case, but Advocate Janjua showed up at the hearing today to represent Imaan and Hadi. When he informed the court that he had been appointed as the couple’s counsel, Judge Majoka said the court had not yet received a notification in this regard.A three-member prosecution team present at the hearing assured the court that the relevant notification would be submitted. For her part, Mazari objected to the change, questioning who had made the new appointment and through what process.

She also raised concerns over the “disappearance” of Advocate Jatt.Mazari contended that she or Chattha had not expressed any lack of confidence in Advocate Jatt and requested the court to record their statements on the matter. She further raised doubts over an application said to be submitted by Advocate Jatt for his removal as the duo’s lawyer. Moreover, she questioned why the court had not objected to the disclosures made by Advocate Jatt at the previous hearing. 

Credit: Independent News Pakistan (INP)