Advocate Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir approached the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Tuesday against Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar after the court administration stripped Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz of her powers to entertain harassment complaints when she took cognisance of a complaint against him.

Last week, Justice Dogar had warned Mazari of a contempt of court case and was reported to have gone as far as passing warning remarks along the lines of “getting a hold of her”. Multiple lawyers’ bodies had issued condemnatory statements and called for the judge’s dismissal from the post of the IHC top judge. Mazari then filed a complaint a day ago against the judge before the IHC’s workplace harassment committee and a reference for misconduct before the SJC.

After Justice Imtiaz took cognisance of her complaint, the IHC administration de-notified her as the “competent au­­thority” and replaced her with Justice Ina­­am Ameen Minhas, stripping Justice Imtiaz of her powers to entertain harassment complaints.

In a post on X today, Mazai said she had filed an addendum to her initial complaint lodged with the SJC against Justice Dogar following yesterday’s “alarming development”. She said Justice Imtiaz was “arbitrarily and with mala fide” removed as the competent authority just a few hours after she had lodged her complaint and a committee was constituted to inquire into the matter.

The additional complaint, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, said various IHC organs — registrar office, dispatch branch and member inspection team — had refused to forward her complaint to the competent authority.

“The complaint was then taken directly to the competent authority … Her court associate confirmed receipt of the complaint by providing a receiving on a copy of the complaint in writing in the courtroom. 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 under the 2010, Act. Eventually, the only female judge (being the competent authority) had to directly entertain the complaint through her staff, after all relevant male officers of the IHC, refused to even receive my complaint.”

Reiterating yesterday’s development, she said Justice Imtiaz had subsequently formed a three-member inquiry team, following which, Justice Dogar “with clear mala fide and in direct conflict of interest” had removed Justice Imtiaz as the competent authority and replaced her with Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas.

“No reason whatsoever has been provided in the removal notification. Even if the chief justice (who is a respondent in the complaint) had any objection on the assumption of jurisdiction by the competent authority or the inquiry committee, he could have raised it as an objection in his response to the complaint. Instead, the chief justice opted to exercise his administrative powers as the chief justice to influence the composition and constitution of the inquiry committee and/or competent authority 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,” the additional request reads.

Mazari also pointed out that cases of hers which were previously not fixed for hearing, were suddenly fixed before Justice Dogar after she filed her complaint. She added that when a proxy counsel appeared on her behalf and requested a case transfer on the grounds of the pending workplace harassment complaint, “not only was this request not entertained but the IHC chief justice repeatedly tried to drag the proxy counsel into discussion on the incident of harassment. The chief justice, while refusing the transfer request, simply on the basis that the principal counsel (the undersigned) had not appeared before him, then adjourned the matter.”

The lawyer also pointed out that she had additional documentation “reflecting the apparent degree of influence and abuse of authority by the IHC chief justice”, saying that soon after last week’s incident, a case was lodged against her in the National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority (NCCIA).

She said on Friday last week, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Interior nominating a special prosecution team in her case. Furthermore, she said a challan was submitted against her in a trial court yesterday and she came to know by media reports and then by a voice note sent by an NCCIA officer that she was summoned in the matter on Wednesday.

“At the time of filing this, I have yet to receive a summons/notice through 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 in a case that involves incidents pertaining to past four years (i.e. 2021-2025) has hastily been filed in trial court and the trial court (working as subordinate judiciary under the IHC chief justice) has immediately fixed it for hearing.”

Mazari urged the SJC to read the additional complaint and documentation as part of her previous complaint against Justice Dogar. “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 concluded.

She made the following request to the SJC secretary: “Due to the dire nature of this complaint and the ensuing consequences, I urge you to convey the contents of this complaint to the honourable members of the SJC urgently upon receipt of this post.”

Reference seeking cancellation of Mazari’s licence filed in Islamabad Bar Council

Separately, a lawyer filed a reference before the Islamabad Bar Council (IBC) seeking the cancellation of Mazari’s practising licence for her alleged involvement in “anti-state activities” and a “smear campaign against state functionaries”.

The reference, filed by Advocate Adnan Iqbal and a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, stated: “The complainant has received some information from credible sources that Mst. Imaan Zainab Mazari Hazir has been involved on a number of occasions in anti-state activities like hate speeches against the state institutions and the honourable heads of government departments, negative and smear campaign against state functionaries and law enforcement agencies, and instigating hatred and rebellion against vital institutions of the state.”

It requested the IBC chairman and its disciplinary committee to initiate an inquiry against Mazari and “permanently cancel her licence to practice as an advocate”. “During the inquiry, her licence may kindly be suspended till final verdict of the worthy disciplinary committee,” it added.

The reference was filed under Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 (punishment of advocates for misconduct), read with Chapter X (disciplinary proceedings) of its 1976 rules and the Islamabad Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules 2017.

The reference alleged there was “strong persuasive evidence” against Mazari for her “close connections with anti-state organisations”, such as the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) 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 and its vital institutions. She could be seen delivering speeches, chanting fiery slogans against the state and its institutions on every such stage adorned for launching anti-state campaign,” it further claimed.