RAWALPINDI: The Special Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Rawalpindi on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the November 26 PTI protest case — naming Aleema Khanum, sister of the former PTI chairman, and 11 others — until December 8 after defence lawyers sought more time, citing a strike call by the Punjab Bar Council.
Despite assurances given on the previous hearing, Aleema and her legal team did not appear before the court at the allotted time. Ten other accused, the prosecution team, and eight prosecution witnesses were present along with the case file. Defence lawyers initially committed to arriving by 10:30am and later by 11am but reached late, eventually requesting adjournment.
Special Prosecutor Zaheer Shah reminded the court that the 10am time was fixed earlier with the consent of the accused and her lawyers. He highlighted that since the case was filed on October 15, 15 hearing dates had passed, with the accused and their lawyers repeatedly failing to proceed, despite prosecution witnesses appearing consistently. Due to these delays, witness statements could not be recorded.
The prosecution urged the court to enforce its earlier order requiring each absent witness to be compensated with Rs10,000 — totalling Rs80,000 — and asked that the amount be deposited before further proceedings. Defence lawyers assured the court they would submit the compensation before the next date.
The prosecution also objected to what it described as “discriminatory relief”, arguing that other accused consistently appeared at 9am, as per court hours, while Aleema Khanum arrived according to her own convenience. They stressed that this objection had already been recorded in the previous court order and requested that the accused and her lawyers be bound to official timings.
Prosecutor Zaheer Shah cautioned that court proceedings were being conducted transparently and that if the defence had any objections, they should pursue legal remedies — such as applying to the High Court for transfer — instead of making media statements that could “make the court controversial”. He asked the defence to specify which legal right had been denied to the accused during the trial. Defence lawyers denied making any such claims, upon which the prosecutor insisted they refrain from issuing unfounded remarks outside the courtroom.
The court, after hearing both sides, adjourned the case until Dec 8 for further proceedings.
