Imaan Mazari, Hadi Ali Deny Charges, Allege Police Violence and Illegal Road Closure

ISLAMABAD:Statements recorded by human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali, under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in a case involving the removal of barriers and interference with official duties have come to light at an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad.

In her statement, Imaan Mazari said she was submitting it in protest, arguing that the cricket team was not even scheduled to pass through the route in question. She claimed that police officials had themselves confirmed that the team had already taken an alternative route.

Mazari maintained that police had no magistrate’s order authorising the temporary closure of the road. She said she and her husband had to reach the ATC as lawyers and requested that the road be reopened after waiting for 15 minutes.

She argued that the unlawful closure of roads violates citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of movement.

Mazari said they had merely reminded police that the road was not anyone’s private property. She questioned why motorcyclists had been allowed to pass if removing the barriers posed a security risk.

She further alleged that the prosecution deliberately withheld the original transcript of a video recording, which she claimed would expose inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

According to her statement, an alleged plainclothes police official named Ibrahim threw an iron barrier at them, injuring her. She said her husband took defensive action to protect her from further violence and physical harm. A medical report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) was also submitted to the court as evidence, she added.

Mazari claimed that there was no evidence on record proving that a police official had been injured. She also said a police officer had apologised to them for the police conduct following the incident.

She challenged the authenticity of a USB drive, alleging that it had remained unsealed at a police station for several days. She argued that investigative proceedings conducted after the Islamabad High Court suspended their judicial remand were unlawful.

Mazari further claimed that all prosecution witnesses were police officials and that no independent or private witnesses had been included in the case. She alleged that she and her husband were facing retaliatory action for their human rights work and the provision of free legal services.

She also alleged that despite securing bail from the Supreme Court, they were subjected to violence and arrested again inside Adiala Jail. She said they were tried inside a cage and denied access to legal counsel.

Declaring herself and her husband innocent, Mazari said they were prepared to make any sacrifice in their struggle to protect people’s rights.

**Hadi Ali’s statement**

Hadi Ali’s statement, also recorded under Section 342 while he was in Adiala Jail, was made public as well.

Ali said he and his wife had been confined in a cage during their jail trial. He said they had challenged the trial proceedings inside the cage, the recording of witness testimony in their absence, and the appointment of a state counsel before the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court.

He maintained that police officials had confirmed the alternative route was closed for only 15 minutes and that no magistrate’s order had authorised the road closure. He argued that the closure violated constitutional rights, including freedom of movement and the right to earn a livelihood.

Ali also alleged that the prosecution withheld the video transcript, which he claimed would expose the weaknesses in the police case.

According to his statement, a police official attacked his pregnant wife with an iron barrier, prompting him to take defensive action to protect her. He said PIMS medical records supported his account of the alleged police violence and his wife’s injuries.

Ali further challenged the legality of forensic examination of the USB drive, voice matching and other investigative procedures, arguing that these actions were unlawful after the Islamabad High Court suspended their judicial remand.

He also alleged that he and his wife were subjected to violence and rearrested on September 17 inside Adiala Jail despite the Supreme Court’s order for their release.

The allegations form part of the defendants’ statements before the court. Their claims and the prosecution’s case remain subject to judicial consideration.

Condense repeated allegations and claimsClarify the case timeline and proceedings