By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: A prominent human rights lawyer filed an addendum on Tuesday with the Supreme Judicial Council, intensifying her misconduct complaint against the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court, accusing him of abusing his authority to derail an investigation into her claims of workplace harassment after he threatened her with contempt proceedings and made remarks about “getting a hold of her.”
Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir expanded her initial reference against Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar, alleging he orchestrated the removal of Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, the only female judge on the bench and the designated authority for handling harassment complaints, hours after Imtiaz took up Mazari’s case and formed an inquiry committee. The dispute, which has drawn sharp criticism from lawyers’ associations, underscores tensions over judicial independence and the handling of harassment claims in Pakistan’s male-dominated courts.
Mazari’s original complaint, filed on Monday with the high court’s workplace harassment committee under the 2010 Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, detailed an incident last week in which Dogar warned her of contempt during a hearing. Courtroom accounts reported him making remarks along the lines of “getting a hold of her,” which Mazari deemed threatening.
When Justice Imtiaz, acting as the “competent authority” under the act, accepted the complaint and formed a three-member inquiry team, the court administration issued a notification removing her and appointing Justice Inam Ameen Minhas in her place. No reason was provided.
In a post on X, Mazari called Imtiaz’s removal “alarming” and “arbitrarily and with mala fide” executed hours after her complaint was lodged. Her addendum to the Supreme Judicial Council described obstacles in filing the initial complaint, noting that court offices, including the registrar, dispatch branch and member inspection team, refused to forward it.
“The complaint was then taken directly to the competent authority … Her court associate confirmed receipt … in writing in the courtroom,” Mazari wrote. “Yesterday’s events showed absolute lack of transparency in relation to the process for registration of complaints under the 2010 act. Furthermore, it highlighted a systematic response/culture of courts, overwhelmingly occupied by men, to not even entertain a complaint of harassment by a woman.”
Mazari accused Dogar of acting “with clear mala fide and in direct conflict of interest” by removing Imtiaz, arguing that he should have raised objections through formal channels rather than using his administrative powers.
“No reason whatsoever has been provided in the removal notification,” she wrote. “Instead, the chief justice opted to exercise his administrative powers … to remove the only female judge, who dared to receive my complaint. Such brazen misconduct within hours after I attempted to seek appropriate remedy and justice is alarming, and reflects the degree of abuse of power prevalent under the IHC chief justice.”
Mazari also alleged retaliatory actions. Cases involving her clients, previously unscheduled, were suddenly set for hearings before Dogar after her complaint. When a proxy counsel requested a transfer citing the harassment case, Dogar denied it and “repeatedly tried to drag the proxy counsel into discussion on the incident of harassment,” adjourning the matter because Mazari did not appear, she wrote.
Further, Mazari cited a case lodged against her with the National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority (NCCIA) shortly after the courtroom incident. On Friday, the Interior Ministry named a special prosecution team. A charge sheet was filed in a trial court Monday, and Mazari learned of a Wednesday summons through media reports and a voice note from an NCCIA officer, not formal court process.
“It appears to be more than a mere coincident that soon after the harassment incident and the filing of complaint, a challan … has hastily been filed in trial court and … immediately fixed for hearing,” she wrote.
Mazari urged the council to incorporate the addendum into her original reference and act swiftly. “I request the members of the SJC to take up my complaint and initiate proceedings against Mr Dogar at the earliest as such brazen misconduct and unchecked exercise of coercive power affects my legal practice and the clients I represent on a daily basis,” she wrote, adding a plea to the council’s secretary to convey the complaint urgently.
Separately, Advocate Adnan Iqbal filed a reference with the Islamabad Bar Council seeking to cancel Mazari’s practicing license, alleging “anti-state activities” and a “smear campaign against state functionaries.” The filing claimed Mazari engaged in “hate speeches against the state institutions” and had “close connections” with groups like the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Baloch Liberation Army and Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement leader Manzoor Pashteen.
“She has been supporting the cause of every movement which has the agenda of rebellion against the state,” the reference alleged, requesting an inquiry and license cancellation under the 1973 Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
