ISLAMABAD – A Pakistani judge has erected a procedural barrier preventing human rights attorney Imaan Mazari from compelling the military’s chief spokesman to testify in her controversial cybercrime trial, a case emblematic of escalating tensions between Pakistan’s powerful armed forces and civil liberties advocates challenging alleged overreach into judicial and political spheres, according to The Express Tribune.
District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka ruled Wednesday that “the prosecution cannot be forced to produce any witness,” effectively dismissing Mazari’s application seeking to summon Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations. The prominent lawyer alleges the military spokesman’s public characterization of her as a “lawyer for traitors” and “foreign agent” during an official press briefing constitutes unlawful interference in sub judice proceedings.
Mazari contends these statements, broadcast while her case remains before the courts, violate constitutional guarantees of fair trial under Article 10-A. Her petition argues that the DG ISPR’s remarks demonstrate inappropriate military involvement in civilian judicial matters; a recurring flashpoint in Pakistan’s fraught civil-military relations.
The lawyer and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, face charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act for social media posts authorities claim incite linguistic divisions and portray armed forces as complicit in terrorism. Federal investigators allege the couple blamed security services for enforced disappearances in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan while promoting narratives aligned with proscribed militant organizations.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, dramatic courtroom exchanges underscored the case’s political dimensions. When Mazari requested removal of apparent intelligence operatives from the courtroom, Judge Majoka demanded she identify specific individuals. Cross-examination revealed prosecution witnesses lacked fundamental knowledge distinguishing legitimate Baloch advocacy groups from banned separatist militants.
Previous hearings screened political speeches containing slogans such as “uniform is behind terrorism”, yet prosecution witnesses declined to characterize whether such statements constituted state opposition. One investigator admitted ignorance regarding Pakistan’s enforced disappearance crisis, official commissions addressing missing persons, and government policy on the matter.
The couple, indicted in October 2024, maintains the prosecution represents political retaliation for their human rights advocacy. They have filed separate petitions seeking case transfer and challenging Judge Majoka’s impartiality, legal maneuvers highlighting institutional concerns about military influence permeating Pakistan’s ostensibly independent judiciary.
The case crystallizes broader struggles over press freedom, military accountability, and judicial independence in a nation where khaki shadows persistently darken civilian institutions.
