Islamabad anti-terrorism court has convicted a husband and wife in a case involving the removal of security barriers installed for the movement of an International Cricket Team in the capital, sentencing them to seven years’ imprisonment under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and one year under the Pakistan Penal Code. Special Court-II Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict on 29 October 2026 in a case registered at Aabpara Police Station on 25 October 2024. The accused, Abdul Hadi Muhammad Ali Chatha and his wife were also fined Rs100,000 each under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Rs50,000 each under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
The incident occurred on Faisal Avenue near the ZTBL building, where police had installed barriers and a Mazda vehicle to regulate traffic and ensure the security of an international cricket team travelling towards Zero Point. The court found that the accused interfered with the security arrangements, removed the barriers and assaulted police personnel deployed on duty. It held that the prosecution had established their participation through witness testimony, video footage and other evidence.
The prosecution's case was that police personnel were performing security duties on 25 October 2024 to facilitate the movement of an international cricket team visiting Pakistan. The team had been accorded the status of state guests, and officials were tasked with preventing any possible terrorist attack during its movement. According to the judgment, two people a man and a woman arrived at the site and began arguing with police officials over the barriers. The woman allegedly identified herself as a lawyer and questioned the officers' authority to block the road, while the male accused allegedly attempted to remove the barriers. The prosecution maintained that when Constable Ibrahim Khan tried to restore the barriers, Abdul Hadi Chatha assaulted him, including punching and slapping him. The judgment records allegations that the accused also threatened police personnel and that the confrontation created fear among people present at the scene. The police subsequently registered a case and arrested the accused. The prosecution presented nine witnesses, seven of whom appeared before the court.
A significant part of the judgment concerns video footage of the incident, which the prosecution submitted for forensic examination. The court noted that the footage was recovered through a USB device and examined by the Federal Investigation Agency's Cyber Crime Wing. The court also considered the testimony of police officials who were present at the scene and found their accounts consistent on the central aspects of the incident. The accused, however, denied the allegations and challenged the prosecution's account.
During the trial, the defence argued that the case was politically motivated and that the accused had themselves been subjected to police violence. The defence maintained that Imaan had been assaulted by police personnel and that the allegations against the couple had been fabricated to conceal misconduct by the authorities. The accused further contended that the confrontation arose from a dispute over road access and security barriers rather than any terrorist intent. Their counsel referred to Supreme Court judgments on the distinction between ordinary criminal conduct and terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The verdict highlights the legal tension between protecting security arrangements for visiting dignitaries and international sporting teams and ensuring that criminal liability is established through evidence. The Anti-Terrorism Act provides for punishment where conduct falls within the statutory definition of terrorism. Following the conviction, the court directed that copies of the judgment be provided to the convicts and that they remain in custody at Adiala Jail. The sentences awarded under the relevant provisions were ordered to run concurrently, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to the convicts, allowing the applicable period of detention already undergone to be taken into account. The judgment was announced and signed on 29 October 2026.