November 8, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on Saturday, November 8, reserved its verdict on a plea seeking the provision of call data records (CDRs) in the case against senior journalist Matiullah Jan, who faces charges under terrorism and narcotics laws.
The hearing was presided over by ATC Judge Tahir Abbas Supra. Barrister Mian Ali Ashfaq represented Matiullah Jan, assisted by Advocate Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chattha. Prosecutor Rana Naveed Hussain appeared on behalf of the state.
During the proceedings, Barrister Ashfaq submitted an application requesting access to the CDRs, arguing that the defence required these records to ensure a fair trial. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court reserved its decision, stating that the order and the next date of hearing would be announced later.
Judge Supra, while commenting on Section 265-C of the Criminal Procedure Code, observed that providing CCTV footage was not mandatory under this section. However, he referred to a previous Lahore High Court judgment in the Zahid Sarfraz narcotics case, where the court had ruled that in drug-related cases, the recovery process must be video-recorded. “In such cases, the video is an essential piece of evidence,” the judge remarked, questioning the prosecution over the availability of video footage in the current case.
The judge asked Prosecutor Rana Naveed Hussain about the video who replied, “The challan has been submitted before the court, but the video is not part of it.” He added “no possession memo has been prepared in this case, nor is there any USB containing digital evidence.”
Following these exchanges, the court adjourned the proceedings.
After the hearing, Barrister Mian Ali Ashfaq spoke to the media, saying that the challan submitted against Matiullah Jan was described by the prosecution itself as a “nominal challan.” He added that the defence had requested clarification from the court regarding the documents and materials submitted with it.
“The purpose of our plea was to clarify whether these are the only documents on the basis of which the prosecution intends to proceed, or whether additional evidence exists,” Ashfaq said. He called the case “fabricated” and “a failed attempt to malign a journalist’s reputation.”
“This case was a planted incident — a concocted story, an unsuccessful attempt to build a massacre case,” he continued. “It was designed to damage Matiullah Jan’s credibility, but it has instead raised questions about the honesty of those behind this prosecution.”
Ashfaq noted that the defence had been insisting that the prosecution show seriousness in pursuing the case. “Often, we have seen prosecutors fail to appear in such hearings, showing a lack of interest. Today, under the court’s repeated questioning, it became clear that the prosecution has no video evidence,” he said.
He explained that under Section 265-C, all relevant documents must be shared with the defence, and under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (Law of Evidence), digital records are included in the definition of documentary evidence. Referring to the Zahid Sarfraz precedent, he emphasized that video documentation is mandatory in narcotics cases. “If you claim recovery or seizure, there must be video evidence,” he said. “That was the foundation of our plea in this case.”
Speaking to reporters outside the court, senior journalist Matiullah Jan said, “A journalist never stops doing his job. I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and as long as I live, I’ll continue.”
He described the case as part of a broader pattern of attempts to silence journalists. “This isn’t the first time. There have been more serious attempts before,” he said. “At least this time, there’s a legal process underway. In the past, we were abducted and disappeared without any legal cover.”
Expressing cautious optimism, Jan said he trusted the judiciary to deliver justice. “I’m glad that the prosecutor today admitted there is no video evidence in the narcotics allegation. Our courts and laws have already said that such evidence is mandatory in these cases. As Barrister Ali Ashfaq said, I believe half of this case is practically decided already.”
Human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari also spoke to the media, saying the case represented an attack on press freedom. “The purpose of such false prosecutions is to use the legal system as a weapon — to drag journalists into courtrooms instead of allowing them to perform their professional duties,” she said.
“The goal is to keep this sword hanging over their heads,” Mazari added. “Even if the authorities do not wish to imprison Matiullah Jan today, the threat remains as long as such baseless cases exist. Whenever a journalist exposes wrongdoing or speaks truth to power, this same sword of punishment is made to hang over them again.”
The court will announce its order on the CDR application and the next date of hearing at a later time.