Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers Imaan Mazari, Hadi Chattha Sent to Jail in Islamabad

Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers Sends Ripples Through Islamabad’s Legal Community

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha has triggered widespread concern within Pakistan’s legal and political circles, raising serious questions about due process, judicial conduct, and the treatment of lawyers engaged in protest and advocacy.

Late on Friday, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad sent the activist-lawyer couple to jail on judicial remand, only hours after their arrest. The move followed allegations linked to a protest outside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and an alleged altercation involving the president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA).

Arrest After Court Protest

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers unfolded swiftly after police intercepted the couple’s vehicle near the Serena Hotel underpass. According to officials of the IHCBA, police vehicles had been stationed outside the IHC premises for three consecutive days and began tailing the bar association’s convoy as it departed the court complex.

Background of the Case

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers comes against the backdrop of an already controversial legal battle involving alleged social media posts. Earlier this month, Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Afzal Majoka had cancelled the couple’s bail and issued arrest warrants.

However, the Islamabad High Court later intervened, declaring the arrest orders null and void and granting the accused four days to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The IHC explicitly stated that Imaan and Hadi should not be arrested in that particular case, provided they appeared before the trial court.

Legal analysts now question whether the fresh FIR and subsequent arrest circumvented the spirit of the IHC’s order.

For background on judicial remand procedures in Pakistan, readers can consult this explainer on criminal law safeguards (external link example).

Claims of Forced Arrest

According to IHCBA officials, the Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers occurred despite assurances from authorities that the couple would be allowed to surrender peacefully before the trial court.

Bar association members allege that police used force during the arrest, forcibly opening vehicle doors and manhandling Imaan Mazari. Lawyers’ Strike and Protest

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers prompted immediate action from lawyers’ bodies, which announced a complete strike in protest. Court proceedings across Islamabad were disrupted as members of the legal community condemned what they described as an attack on the independence of lawyers.

IHCBA Secretary Manzoor Ahmed Jajja resigned from his position in protest, stating that he had received assurances that the couple would not be arrested until they appeared before the court.

“After what happened, I could not continue in office,” Jajja told reporters, confirming that he had submitted his resignation to the Islamabad Bar Council.

You can read more about previous lawyers’ movements in Pakistan in our detailed report on bar council protests (internal link example).

Conflicting Legal Proceedings

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers has also complicated ongoing court proceedings. Due to their absence, Judge Majoka adjourned the hearing in the social media posts case and warned that the right to cross-examination could be closed if the accused failed to appear.

The prosecution argued that the couple was deliberately avoiding proceedings, a claim strongly rejected by their legal team, which insists they were attempting to surrender when arrested.

Judge Majoka directed that cross-examination be completed by Saturday afternoon, noting that sufficient time had already been granted.

Political Reaction and Family Response

The Shock Arrest 2 Lawyers drew a sharp response from former federal minister Shireen Mazari, Imaan’s mother, who described the arrests as “fascism at its peak” in a series of posts on X.

She claimed that police failed to present a valid FIR at the time of arrest and alleged that violence was used against bar leaders, including breaking vehicle windows.

“All because the Twitter case had been exposed,” she wrote, suggesting the arrest was intended to prevent further embarrassment during cross-examination.

Her remarks amplified public debate and fueled criticism of what many see as selective enforcement of the law.